The article criticizes “taking us back to the 19th century,” but ironically dropping property qualifications for voting was an innovation of the Jacksonian era of the 1820s-1850s. There is a tendency to all efforts to generalize the franchise together, but that’s illogical. Just because race and sex are illegitimate qualifiers for voting doesn’t mean that all qualifiers for voting are necessarily illegitimate. Are we asserting that psychological science has taught us nothing in 200 years relevant to our evaluation of whether someone who can't hold down a job at a grocery store should be steering democracy to the same degree as a doctor or scientist? (And note this is an argument against interest here, since I belong to what’s clearly now the dumber party.)