You missed my point. I basically said a functional society has certain parameters for being successful. Now if you align those positives with peoples selfish desires what difference does it make if they remain selfish?
I'm talking high level, get the idea going, not to actually solve the problem here and now. You're going into what-if specifics and setting up a specific example to fail. It's like saying a little bit of wine here and there is good for your health and your retort is but if you chug a box of wine it's not good for you. No shit. If I had to comment on this specifically it it would be 1 kid or 10 kids you only get an extra vote.
So again, high level:
You want a society that's working (not mooching), you need kids for the future (not childless cat ladies and incel man childs), you want people that care about where they live (not grifters ready to move if things get tough). etc....
So I maintain, if you incentivize positive social constructs, you'll get those people who will vote for someone who will best allow them to continue that. If you want a good counter example of late stage democracy just look to Venezuela (or similar) where as they enter the downwards spiral, more people are out of work so they vote for more social programs and then more people lose their jobs because of government intervention and the cycle continues from there because people's selfish tendencies (unchecked) make it worse.
I don't see how the family example was meant to set you up for failure in an outlandish way. I made kids a decimal. Most families have one or two kids. There are only a million families with more than 3 in Canada. A couple with two kids under the age of 18 would have a "voting weight of 2.4" vs 2 for a couple with no kids.
The main problem with kids as a metric is that as virtuous as it may be made out, it's not an indicator of ethical behavior in itself. If anything, there may be a bit of an undesirable bias between very large families and lack of professional achievements. Highly educated, successful professionals aren't as likely to have 3-4 kids whereas people that can't understand the basics of human reproduction and family planning might.
That's where you'd have the hardest time with this idea, coming up with the metrics for which you want to assign extra weight, have them hold to to scrutiny and be meaningful enough.
You can be dumber than a bag of rocks and own property. Either it was passed down to you, or it's in an area where it's simply more affordable. Do the $150 000 homeowner in the boonies deserve more electoral weight than the people that are renting $2000 a month condos in Montreal? That's lifestyle more than virtue.
Education? Liberal Arts Degree in painting with boogers vs no-nonsense skilled trade. Again, who is more virtuous?
Business owner vs employee. Should the kweffeuse's votes be more important than that of a high-level public servant on account they're submitting different forms to CRA?
Our system is already set up to encourage us to vote for "super voters" because it recognizes that direct democracy is flawed. So instead we elect people that are meant to be qualified,ethical and look out for our best interests: MLA/MPs. That was the idea anyways. Besides creating career mooches and limp dicks who spend their days flip flopping at the altar of polling data, I'm not sure it really accomplishes the intended purpose.
Venezuela's economy is in shambles because it was pretty much official foreign policy for decades of the G7/NATO to fuck with and punish socialism in South America. It's hardly a fair comparison.