I've read that in some of the original colonies (and maybe states, later) voting was limited to property owners, since other folks were considered to have "no skin in the game", as we now say. If so, I think it should have been left that way, since the poor invariably try to vote themselves the property of the better off, leaving them (the poor) with no incentive to better themselves on their own. Also, fairness aside, I've seen no indication that the nation is any better off (in fact, maybe worse) since women got the vote.
Here's a comment that I received from posting the above on Facebook.
Amanda Caukwell - my fathers ancestors in Yorkshire were yeoman farmers. until I began researching the family tree I had no idea that they were voters because they either employed a man or owned/rented more than five acres. This was important as it meant they had status. When the London landowners put rents up many upped and went to Canada and in 1700's questions were asked in parliament about the great Methodist Yorkshire exodus. This was a major problem for the gentry since the land was being abandoned by families who had farmed it for generations and the parts who stayed- my immediate ancestors-stayed because they did not have the money to go or to rent. Many a boy with a poor start could end up being an employer and thus have a vote. If you don't contribute you can't vote. harsh but fair.