In my view, an election is an exercise in which individuals connect into a collective democratic body by renewing a collective institution with power over them. Be it locals electing a major, residents of a county electing a county council, residents of a state electing a regional parliament, citizens of a country electing a national parliament, or EU citizens electing an EU parliament.

Thus, I say, there should be one voter one vote in a single election -- but a local election in the same country, not to mention local elections in multiple countries, is not one election but several parallel ones. Parallel not in the sense of voting for your local representative, but in the sense that the democratic bodies are different, as defined by the different, what's more disjunct collective institutions (councils/mayors/whatever with power over separate cities/villages).

Hence, I san't see the equality you see between voting twice in two countriesd in the same EU election, and voting in local elections in multiple places.

What I sought to bring up then was examples of parallel votes at other levels than local elections: votes in two national elections (notjust) within the EU, votes in two regional elections within the same federal country.

Further, I sought to counter your insistence on ensuring that one can vote in one local election only with two types of examples/arguments: practical problems with implementing it, and opposite practice in places other than (apparently) France.

The practical was that when parallel elections are held at different times (like local elections in different countries or within a federal country, regional elections within a federal country, or national elections within the EU), you can't exclude people who moved in the time in-between -- even if, in theory, they are moving back and forth with a frequency allowing them to vote in every election at both places.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}