Similarly, rich people are (again, with exceptions) more likely to vote for parties that favour direction of resources to the rich, and poor people for parties that favour resources for the poor. However, since unversal suifferage, right wing parties have depended on a certain proportion of poor people voting against their economic interest - in England called 'working class Tories' - let's park that point for a second.
Now, let's take a third point. Voting for a losing party, in a constituency in which you are in a minority, may be described as 'wasting your vote'. It's an emotive term, but let's accept it.
Ergo, from these three points, rich right wing people are more likely to 'waste their vote' than poor left wing people, because they are more scattered geographically. And the converse of this is that votes for Labour from poor areas are less likely to be wasted - there is a better representation per vote ratio - because poor people tend to live in poor areas, with lots of other people like them.
There are two complicating factors - the working class Tory, as I mentioned above, and the fact that the poorest people are less likely to vote. These two factors are what allow right wing parties to survive in the western world. The effect of these two factors is more pronounced in the USA.
Anyway - this means that there are reasons why it takes more rich votes than poor votes to elect a representative, and it is not prima facie evidence of corruption or a problem which necessarily validates the abolition of 50 Parliamentary seats.