My point is that even though there are widely accepted moral arguments for why "one vote per person" is the best way to organize society, it really boils down to an economic argument about what the actual results of such a society will be. I suspect few people would support "one vote per person" on moral grounds if they believed that another system would result in a society where everyone is better off. Likewise, I suspect few libertarians, socialists, anarchists, etc. would continue to make moral arguments if they truly believed that their proposed society would end up the way their opponents believe it would end up.
> Side note: Efficiency of law production is not a metric most people will consent to prioritizing above metrics like perceived justice.
Economically efficient law is pretty difficult to argue against. I suspect the vast majority of people will support it if they understand the definition of economic efficiency. From Wikipedia:
"An economic system is said to be more efficient than another (in relative terms) if it can provide more goods and services for society without using more resources."