Tokyo District 15: Policy comparison matrix (2026 general election)
The general election is this Sunday, February 8. I had no idea which candidate to vote for, so I put together a matrix to compare their policies.
2026 general election: Policy matrix for Tokyo District 15 candidates
| Policy | Natsumi Sakai | Kosei Ozora | Yurika Miyoshi | Saya Fukami | Kana Suzuki | Toshiaki Yoshino |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Party | Centrist Reform | LDP | Ishin | DPP | Seito | Tax Cut |
| ①Consumption tax | 0% on food 👎 | Maintain 👍 | 0% for 2 years 👎 | Flat 5% 👎 | Abolish 👎 | Cut 👎 |
| ②Social security | More public funding 👎 | Self-help & mutual aid 👍 | Cut premiums 👍 | Boost take-home 👍 | Oppose higher burden 👎 | Curb medical costs 👍 |
| ③Redistribution | Refundable tax credit 👍 | NPO support 👎 | Free education 👎 | Inflation allowance 👎 | ¥100k handout 👎 | Preventive care 👍 |
| ④Future burden | Fiscal discipline 👍 | Expansionary 👎 | Cut spending 👍 | Education bonds 👎 | Max spending 👎 | Long-term view 👎 |
| ⑤Constitution & security | Cautious 👎 | Support 👍 | Support 👍 | Open debate 👎 | Own constitution 👎 | Support 👍 |
| ⑥Optional separate surnames | Support 👍 | Cautious 👎 | Support 👍 | Support 👍 | Oppose 👎 | Oppose 👎 |
| Score (👍 incl. party) | 4 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
When I laid out each policy like this, the contradictions were everywhere and it was frustrating. They promote tax cuts while at the same time making pledges that are clearly handouts. How much do they actually think about feasibility? Will the day ever come when I can vote by process of elimination?
2026 general election: Proportional block – party pledge comparison matrix
I made a policy-based matrix for the proportional block in the same way.
| Policy | LDP | Centrist Reform | Ishin | Mirai | DPP | Communist | Reiwa | Tax Cut | Seito | Conservative | Social Dem. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ①Consumption tax | Maintain 👍 | 0% on food 👎 | 0% for 2 yrs 👎 | Maintain 👍 | Flat 5% 👎 | 5% 👎 | Abolish 👎 | Cut 👎 | Abolish 👎 | Cut 👎 | 0–3% 👎 |
| ②Social security | Self-help 👎 | Public funding 👎 | Efficiency 👍 | Cut premiums 👍 | Take-home 👍 | Welfare 👎 | Handouts 👎 | Curb medical 👍 | Oppose burden 👍 | Family 👎 | Welfare 👎 |
| ③Redistribution | Firm→worker 👎 | Rich→poor 👎 | Gov't→childcare 👎 | Elderly→working 👍 | Future→workers 👎 | Big biz→weak 👎 | Future→all 👎 | Public→local 👎 | Future→kids 👎 | Foreign→home 👎 | Defense→irregular 👎 |
| ④Future burden | Expansionary 👎 | Discipline 👍 | Cut 👍 | Investment 👍 | Bonds 👎 | Reform 👍 | Expansionary 👎 | Long-term 👎 | Accept 👎 | Growth 👍 | Redirect 👎 |
| ⑤Constitution & security | Build-up 👍 | Status quo 👍 | Nuclear debate 👍 | Digital defense 👍 | Clarify self-defense 👍 | Protect Art.9 👎 | Withdraw US 👎 | Maintain force 👍 | Own constitution 👎 | Self-defense force 👍 | Unarmed 👎 |
| ⑥Optional separate surnames | Cautious 👎 | Support 👍 | Support 👍 | Support 👍 | Support 👍 | Support 👍 | Support 👍 | Cautious 👎 | Oppose 👎 | Oppose 👎 | Support 👍 |
| Score (👍) | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
Notes
- Policy summarization was done with Google Gemini.
- 👍👎 ratings are my personal views only.
- For details, please check each party’s and each candidate’s official site and pledges.
After making the comparison matrix
Once I’d put it all in a matrix, it was harder than I’d expected to tell what they’re really saying. For both candidates and parties, contradictions between policies and vague funding stood out. Personally, I’d be happy if someone would just clearly commit to smaller government, fiscal discipline, and fairer social insurance contributions.
As someone who spends time walking around regional cities, I worry about what happens to those places. Handout-driven inflation may look good in nominal terms, but in real terms it could get painful. When I think about what that means for regions that are already fiscally fragile, it leaves me with a heavy feeling.