“which gave the right to Women, the landless..”
“The landless” are citizens. Owning land does not make you a superior being. Asserting so is anti-American and will get you beat like a mule in most of the West, boy. See, we are not monarchists or aristocrats here like it seems you would prefer. “The landless” are of far, far greater worth than a snobbish, petulant, neo-aristocrat who believes that owning land makes them into a better “class” of people.
Take my advice. Go to Europe so you can play at being a princess because you sure don’t fit in here in America.
That has nothing to do with the idea that "the landed" ought to be the only ones voting. Personally, I'm beginning to take a minor shine to resurrecting the idea myself. Basically, our forefathers only wanted landowners voting, because they were the ones paying the lions share of the taxes. Today, we're nearly at the tipping point where (50% + 1) of the electorate are net drains on the treasury, rather than net contributors. Once the non-contributors can consistently out-vote the contributors, then entire system will fail. Under what just and rational system could those who give nothing have power to direct the proceeds over those who actually did give? Should your dinner guests have the insurmountable right to tell you what you should buy for dinner?
Sorry, but elitism has nothing to do with it. It is pure logic that dictates that those who do not contribute ought not have superior voting power over the treasury over those who put the money there in the first place. The Founders were elitist, and neither are those who today are starting to appreciate the wisdom of that ancient little voting caveat.
Open a history book genius