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.
I absolutely believe that property requirements are an imperative to voting.
Blackstone, himself, basically said that the purpose of the property requirement was to reduce the power of elites who were landlords, factory owners, and charlatans. Fundamentally, his argument came down to the fact that a man without his own property was not only not invested in the community, but was merely an extension of the interests of the elites. That the individual free man's right to vote would be deluded by rent-seekers, debtors, the ignorant, and the enslaved to vote on behalf of the interests of their masters.
Blackstone argued that a property requirement guaranteed a form of financial independence from the elites. Particularly in a time when votes were not anonymous, there was little chain of custody, and no voting right protections pretty much at all. A worker who didn't vote as the factory owner wanted would be fired. A renter who didn't vote as the landlord wanted would lose his home. A debtor who didn't vote the way his lender wanted would find his assets confiscated. A slave who didn't vote the way his master wanted would die.
John Adams, many years later, concurred. He pointed out that, unlike England, America had vast amounts of land for farming. Any man who effectively had a bit of land would find himself able to have financial independence and contribute to his local community. If you had a forest on your property, you could log. If you had a pond/river, you could fish. If you had plains, you could farm. If you owned property in the town center, you'd learn a trade. The American Experience clearly demonstrates the value of property rights as a mandatory aspect of freedom, and owning property guarantees independence from authoritarian control.
This logic can even be seen in the 3/5ths Compromise. Not only should slaves not vote, they should also not be counted for representation. Slavers in the south argued that they helped to represent the will of their slaves, thus each slave should be counted so that government funds could be adequately distributed. Northern anti-slavery activists and liberals knew that allowing slaves political power would only further the interests of their masters, and never the slaves. Slaves should not be given protections or political power, they must be freed.
If history has shown us anything in regards to this logic, it's shown us that Blackstone and Adams were undoubtedly correct. Their assertions have been proven utterly. Dependent people vote for the interests of those whom they are dependent on. Slaves vote for their masters. Slaves vote for slavery. This is why every American slaver tended to emphasize how they were wonderfully benevolent people who were civilizing 'wild' humans. They just wanted power. Universal suffrage, particularly to those who do not own their own means of financial independence, is morally abhorrent because it only adds votes to the extremely powerful. People vote in their own interests... but if those interests are dependent on the interests of some elite, then it means that the elite is simply voting twice.
500 employees of Walmart who can't survive without the job, are not 500 people voting. It's just Walmart voting 500 times.
A property requirement is imperative. I wouldn't even say that residency is enough. If you have a mortgage on that house, it's not yours. It's the bank's. You're voting on behalf of the bank.
Some people will scream that this is disenfranchisement. No, that's wrong. These people are already disenfranchised. You can't disenfranchise someone who already has no say. No slave is ever free. No slave can ever have power. No slave can ever vote. A slave must be freed, only then can he be free. Once he is free, then he can have Independence and power through property. That power through property guarantees their interest, and requires their representation in power. Better for the slave to see his that his chains than to pretend he is free. He must know that he is a slave if there is ever going to be a chance for him to be free. There is no better way teach someone that they are enslaved than to say: "You own nothing, you have no say".
It's not pretty. It's negative incentive. But it's honest.
As long as the draft and selective Service exist there's no argument that should deprive men of the vote.
There's also an argument to be made that, while havin skin in the game (aka paying taxes) is important there's also an argument to be made that men, historically didn't vote for mass-handouts and frivolous welfare. Case in point: Switzerland, one of the few countries where women got the vote way after men did, and insane tax-spending only ever exploded after they got the vote.
Sounds like the draft should be ended, and the militia system be reinstituted.
Taxation isn't "having skin in the game". There is never a direct benefit to you. That's why I recommend bonds as a form of funding.
They absolutely do. Your issue is that women vote for it at a higher rate, not that men don't do it.
"Taxation is theft" has become a meme, but it's basically true; you, as a taxpaying citizen, have no real say in how your tax money is spent. Sure, you can elect officials that might spend how you like, but that's no guarantee they won't pick this one time to start taking bribes. You'll have a hard time voting in a politician that promises to spend 100% to your liking in the first place. You could run yourself, but not for every position in existence.
Can you explain bonds and how they might solve this problem?
No.
I just spent the past hour trying to explain it in a giant comment and now I accidentally hit the back button and lost everything. Links and all.
...
I'm going to fight through my unbridled rage and sorrow and give you a small bullet list of the concept.