This is fascinating, as I've done some work with weighted voting systems in the past.<p>If I understand correctly, some emergent effects would occur.<p>1. The poor would collectively have less voting power.<p>2. The poor would likely become less poor due to distribution of voting funds. This would be roughly proportional to the amount of voting power lost.<p>3. The middle class, assuming it still exists the way we know it, may or may not have increased collective voting power.<p>4. Upper-middle class will gain proportionally more collective voting power than what middle class gained, but they are fewer in population. The 1% will gain even more, but they are only 1% of the population. Each social class (aside from the poor) will have more representation, while the poor will receive money (and a tiny amount of representation).<p>5. More passionate voters will pay more, and polarizing or strongly motivating issues will create a less-predictable situation at the polls. This could be a very good thing or a very bad thing, I don't know. Perhaps this is where the magic happens.<p>6. Political groups will form voting coalitons to vote certain ways, and may be paid to do so, beyond the voting fees, unless legally prohibited. However, this may prove to be not the most viable use of resources.<p>I think that this could work in positive ways. However, I wouldn't bet on it, as there are as many things that could go wrong. When dealing with complex strategy or architecture choices with unknown consequences, it is a hard sell to willingly go with one that brings significant risk. However, one can argue, especially with the current political climate and lack of faith in the system, that not switching to this would be the bigger risk.<p>I'm interested in finding smaller scale applications of such a system, as a crude proof of concept.