I hadn't known this -- it turns out that the New Jersey Constitution of 1776 allowed all heads of households "worth fifty pounds clear estate" to vote in state elections, and therefore in elections for the federal House of Representatives. This didn't include married women, but it did include widows and adult unmarried women; and women did vote under this constitution, until the franchise was restricted to men in 1807.
There's a pretty thorough article on this, though available online only to JSTOR subscribers: Judith Apter Klinghoffer & Lois Elkis, "The Petticoat Electors": Women's Suffrage in New Jersey, 1776-1807, 12 J. Early Rep 159 (1992). Thanks to Prof. Rob Natelson for the information. Wikipedia also reports that a short-lived Corsican Republic (1755-69) provided for women's suffrage as well.
In British Columbia there is still something like this. Any Canadian citizen over 18 who meets the residency requirements can vote where he or she lives, without property qualification. However, if you own property in another place (municipality, regional district, or school district), you are entitled to vote there as well in local elections. (You can only vote once in each capacity - if you own property in multiple jurisdictions, you can only vote as a property-holder in one of them.)
Interestingly enough, most textbooks only report the second date for women having the vote in Utah, not the first.
I believe California has weighted voting for special tax districts.
Hm. Should only those with income get to vote on income taxes? Only those who buy things get to vote on sales taxes? Only those with capital gains get to vote on capital gains taxes?
What about deductions? Do only homeowners get to vote on that deduction? Etc. It seems to me that it could get very complicated very quickly to define the relevant voting group.
I think you're focusing only on the income side and not the expense side. Since we all have a say in the expenditures, we should all have a say in the collections.
Correct, though these are pretty limited.
Under the French mandate, Syrian women certainly did not have political rights; recall that metropolitan France did not give women the vote until 1945!
I refer you to Libby Thompson's excellent Colonial Citizens (2000).
That's a pleasantly communistic thing to say. And, pray tell, when a neighbor refuses to fork over the money you and the remaining neighbors have decided belongs to you, will you beat him to get the money? There's the essence of democracy.
Interesting about Syria. Do I understand then that in 1918-1920 women never actually got the vote, it was just discussed?
It occurs to me that your friend was probably thinking of the period from 1949 to 1953, when Syrian women had limited suffrage. The coup of 1953 ended that. I think women got the vote again in the early seventies and still have it.