That's a fairly nonsensical way of looking at things though.
It is by modern understandings, but it absolutely made sense in the time's conception of politics. Since we're comparing it to what people at the time thought the later is absolutely quite important. Anachronism is the reason non-historians generally run into so much trouble with their historical comparisons, especially in intellectual and cultural matters. What happened in America at the highest level of ideas, and not in the more operative material level, is the country movement convinced people that the old system had been too corrupted by "Tory" "interests". They in general they weren't fighting to create something new, though Paine eventually began pushing some people to think this way, but instead to "restore" the "rights of Englishmen".
Americans really wanted their existing structures to exist at the same level as Parliament and under the crown. But this couldn't have worked, because the entirety of the preceding 90 years politically had been about establishing a stable state headed by the Crown-in-Parliament. Americans simply didn't really understand politics in Britain. Their entire conception of the constitution was based on a mixture of Coke and Locke, when what was actually going on in Britain was a lot less abstract and a lot more practical.
Why would Americans own land in Britain?
If they want the vote they could pay for it. Much like someone that wanted a more impactful vote, or even a MP itself, could simply buy land in a more represented borough for just that reason. For instance look at how vastly underrepresented places like Manchester were in Britain. Or the entirety of the country of Scotland!
Why shouldn't land ownership in the colonies count if the colonists were equal other Englishmen?
This is the fundamental misunderstanding. The vote wasn't about the individual, it was about property, and really mostly land, and the "interest' that property gave in the state.
This is all also ignoring the fact that requirements of owning land to vote was a valid complaint made by many of the more radical revolutionaries who were pushing for universal suffrage.
Who weren't really driving the revolution or in control of it. There was somewhat of a radical Wilkite movement that somewhat preceded the Jacobins, but that emerged as a reaction to the conflict more than as a driving force.
The war was ultimately about diverging conceptions of the foundations of the state. The attempt to make this some radical war about freedom, or a revolution on the same scale of that of the French, is the result of a mixture of political propaganda for more radical revolutionaries later and the building of a myth history for the US.
The average white American, and requiring that adjective must always set alarm bells off, was more free in the US than in Britain in 1790 mostly in the sense that he had an easier time acquiring a stake in the state because land was significantly cheaper, and "movable property", and this includes some rather obvious issues including a rather famous fractional compromise, was more highly regarded.
.
