It is not a red herring, we are no longer a largely rural agrarian soceity with land to be had for all, we live in cites, our property is all ultimately on loan from a bank, our soceity lives largely in urban areas and we do not own our land, it is not reasonable, nor rationale to base our voting rights on land ownership, that is the class warfare, a landowner is a higher class citizen, regardless of "contributions" to our society, just because they have property they are of higher status? Of course I am going to use the relative contributions of people living in different environments to highlight how this is not an effective system, nor an effective idea.
This concept is regressive, and would ultimately lead to a disproportionate representation based on what areas had lower property values, this is no red herring, this is an innate flaw in your concept, our nation has changed in the last 235 years, land is a not anywhere even close to a viable barometer for the right to vote, it is mostly owned by banks and business interests, aside from people who are sedentary and have remained on their familial plot of land for generations, we do not own our land, and just a desire to pick up and move, or to change neighborhoods or to attempt to move up in our soceity and relying on taking out a loan to do so would mean potentially sacrificing the right to vote.
Talk about tyranny of the few, your idea is horrifically dated, and horrifically flawed
