I thought that the article did a good job of explaining that the goal was to allow people to weight their votes based on how important it was to them. In other

I thought that the article did a good job of explaining that the goal was to allow people to weight their votes based on how important it was to them. In other words it would give people the ability to decide how much they wanted to invest in the outcome. With that money distributed to the voting pool, not investing in a particular decision because they don't have strong preference results in acquiring resources that can be used to invest in other decisions where they do have a strong preference. I'm not saying it is a good idea overall. Just that while it looks unfair when just consider how the votes are purchased, things look much fairer when you consider that the money used to purchase votes is distributed evenly back into the system. I'm not sure it would work well for the US government, but it seems like it might work very well for other organizations--for example stockholders in corporations.