John Adams and Blackstone agreed. Not on the concept of race though, but of dependency.

Both explicitly state that a man of the family, who owns property, and has an income from his business, and is a resident in his community should vote.

They specifically cite the dangers in allowing non-property owners to vote, and it is because they are not the ones voting, but they are just multiplying the vote of their masters. I think it was Blackstone that specifically laid out: Charlatans, Rabel Rousers, Factory owners, and Landlords not being allowed to vote; and his argument is extremely poignant.

The Landlord who gives space to tenants will pressure his tenants to vote on his behalf as their home and family are utterly dependent on his welfare. So, the more tenants he has, the more votes he has in a given area, even if he doesn't live there. "You vote my way, or I'm kicking you out."

The Factory owner hires large numbers of poor, illiterates, and immigrants to fill his factory with cheap labor. The same problem appears. He can pressure his employees to vote on his behalf, everywhere there is a factory of his; and so he multiplies his vote. They will vote to protect their jobs, and so they vote to protect his interest.

The Rabel Rouser is an activist. He produces nothing except passion and discontent among the people, and he does that for money. He manipulates people to voting for his will by manipulating them to accept his positions as theirs. Once again, by the will of manipulating the mob and with social pressure, he multiplies his voting power.

The Charlatan is the con man, or the cult leader. He tricks and deceives people into giving him money and they see him as a savior. He exists to manipulate and deceive, and can trick people into reflecting his will in a voting booth; once again multiplying his power.

The entire concept is about removing dependency, because slaves vote for their masters. The man of the house votes, not because women or children shouldn't be represented or are stupid, but because he is the only true arbiter of the family, and is the only person who is genuinely independent. The property owner only votes where he lives, and only votes in his community. He doesn't vote for higher positions than his own, directly invested environment.

The value of a republican system is that it builds strata upon strata. What should happen is that the individuals vote for their village. The villages vote for the county. The counties vote for the state. The states vote for the country. The number of voters is very small, but it means that it is very accountable. 85 million votes for president diffuses responsibility, but 300 makes it nearly impossible to miscount or corrupt, especially if those final electors are chosen one strata at a time.

The system actually makes a lot of sense, because you basically never have a situation where more than a thousand people are voting in one particular strata, and everyone is only responsible for what is directly in front of them. Intriguingly, it's quite similar to how you might write good code for a program. Each method preforms specific tasks, and hides specific data within itself, and only focuses on the one function it's supposed to do; but it is part of a much larger system where this one level of scope is repeated dozens of times to make a complex final structure.

Blackstone said that allowing non-property owners and non-residents the right to vote would beget tyranny, and I can't help but think he's absolutely right. I'm actually much more comfortable with the idea of small towns banning Walmart, because if the economy becomes dominated by Walmart, the way that voting is set up: you won't get a population of 100 voters who are community members, you'll just get 100 employees who will vote for whatever Walmart wants. And Walmart isn't even a person, but a legal fiction, a corporate entity. There's no accountability for anything.

Now when you look at the fact that every action the Left has taken has been to make as many voters as humanly possible, and broaden the voting scope as much as possible to all levesl, and they want to abolish the electoral college; you can see the incredible danger in "Democracy" that Blackstone was warning about.