Yep! Like I mentioned, this has the problem that state borders are fairly arbitrary and let you “launder” one group’s wealth into another group’s voting power.
But I just remembered—before Reynolds v. Sims established “one man, one vote”, New Hampshire used this exact system. From 1784 through 1964, districts were apportioned based on taxable wealth.
To be more precise—I don’t think it’s logically coherent to apportion voting power between states according to wealth, but between people by population (i.e. equally). Either you want to upweight high taxpayers or you don’t.
Yep! Like I mentioned, this has the problem that state borders are fairly arbitrary and let you “launder” one group’s wealth into another group’s voting power.
But I just remembered—before Reynolds v. Sims established “one man, one vote”, New Hampshire used this exact system. From 1784 through 1964, districts were apportioned based on taxable wealth.
To be more precise—I don’t think it’s logically coherent to apportion voting power between states according to wealth, but between people by population (i.e. equally). Either you want to upweight high taxpayers or you don’t.