Also, I'm sure Bloomberg writers LOVE attempts to replace Democracy with some weird economic neo-market model.
Coins...get a grip, man. EDIT: Sorry. "Tokens". Whatever.
And “quadratic voting” may have uses beyond the areas governed by the US constitution. Even within those areas, there are minorities other than property owners. Blacks, for example, do not seem to have been very successful as a minority in preventing the various things that the state does to them that are plausibly unhelpful (though the quantification thereof may well be intractable). The particular use case here, however, seems to be to make the specific institutions you describe more effective, as opposed to relying on their being pitted against each other to make things work. I think that it is more desirable to have a single institution that works well, where possible (which it generally isn’t) than multiple institutions that operate against each other in an attempt to avoid pitfalls, because one generally falls into more pitfalls in the process, even if the balance of advantage lies with the latter case.
Here the "marketing" is a big part of the point. Proposing solutions to democratic problems with something derived from economics provides theoretical cover to people who are seeking to undermine democracy in service of capital. The idea that democracy needs to be "more effective" because of some structural issue, not with society but with democracy itself, is incredibly dangerous.
EDIT: I'm rambling, but I think that the article was a type of propaganda. I was also trying to point out that the constitution enshrines some very extreme positions for at least one minority that actually benefits from things like what are described by this article. I don't take it's claims seriously because I believe that it actually exists to present aspects of capitalism as superior to democracy.