I've been listening to the revolutions podcast (very good) and was really struck by the idea that having "skin in the game" was almost universally considered superior to universal suffrage for a long time. I think there is something to the idea, although the implementation is what matters.
This is amazing to me, because I am also listening to the Revolutions podcast (just finished part 1 of the Russian Revolution, i'm sure this Stolypin guy will make some good reforms and Tsar Nicholas II will live happily ever after). However, I come away from these episodes with a completely different lesson: that the people opposed to universal suffrage were almost always the people in power who did not want to risk losing power, and so drew convenient lines to disenfranchise anybody who threatened their regime.
I very much do not think there is any merit to the idea that only those who claim to have "skin in the game" should get to vote. The grands blancs in pre-revolution Haiti - who owned lots of land, wealth, and people - often didn't even live on the island! In what way did they have more "skin in the game" than the slaves whose skin was being literally ripped to shreds in order to generate more profits? Not to mention the Black freedmen who owned property but still couldn't vote!
I think the mere act of being a citizen of a country - and thus being subject to the laws and policies of that country - gives you the right to a share in the governance of that country, no matter what your net worth, sex, race, etc.
