The repeal the 19th meme is funny but now I'm not sure that is as much of a problem.
The property requirement meant that only those with skin in the game were the ones who got to decide who governed. Without it we have paupers and indolents with the power to spend money that they did not earn or pay.
That inevitably leads to the death spiral from the famous quote:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Obviously no political movement can form based on this principle since our current "conservatives" are too spineless to even fight for voter ID requirements. But at least it is within the overton window allowing for public discussion.
Sounds like something that would only work in a population of a given size, and no bigger.
But then, I think a lot of things are starting to break down simply because the numbers are becoming too cumbersome, and there's too much "diversity" all the way around. Computers came in a "just in time" sort of way to save certain problems from arising, but perhaps they only served as an extension of sorts (which is all technology really does, in the end ...)
(Computers certainly came just in time to handle the population boom after WW2 and the crazy-ass population explosion since then; otherwise, I can see a whole lot of "scibe errors" taking place that computers simply don't allow ... my mom told me about an incident she had just before I was born in '68, where she noticed an older woman's bankbook in front of her had the same account number she did. And this was when our bank branches each acted like their own little island, and you had to do things at your branch and there were no ATMs or anything until I was an older kid. Anyway, imagine still having to keep track of accounts or anything else by hand, on paper, in filing cabinets, with armies of typists ...)
It would also make public-private partnerships pretty difficult, I think.
Anyway, also with the property ownership? First make sure that all your property owners are loyal citizens and not, say, skanky sussy foreigners (lookin' at you, Chancouver.
I think if you only let property owners vote you have to have some limitation on who or what can own property, and perhaps how much property a given entity can own. Otherwise you'd have eg. Apple and its giant war-chest of cash buying up all the real estate in an area to prevent anyone else from owning property and voting against it.
Allowing corporations to own real property probably itself was a mistake, since they have potentially indefinite lifespans.
The two are related, but I think you still want to avoid the scenario where a company (or the richest person in town) buys all the land in a city so no one else has voting rights.
States and municipalities would be free to allocate voting rights any way they want.
Truly. I forget what the original legal justification was, but now we have non-entities that receive all the legal protections of citizens yet have none of the responsibilities of citizens. Terrible stuff.