The distinction, to my mind, if we're going to dice words (which I have a bad tendency to do) is that you can be a citizen insofar as you receive certain protections from the State and are attached to it in various ways, without necessarily being able to vote. It is sort of like having a chocolate cake without any frosting: good, but not as good as it ought to be.
On a practical level, I agree with those who say that restricting enfranchisement in such a manner is against the intent of the Founding Fathers. I don't agree with the idea. However, there *are* certain positive aspects to doing such a thing; sadly, they would be greatly overshadowed by the injustice inherent in such a system.
Tuor
I always find it fascinating that two people can read something and come away with such disparate views. I suspect that in this case, at least, I had already rejected the extreme Libertarian philosophy by the time I got around to reading this book, and so the political subtext just rolled off me. I do remember thinking that this particular scheme sounded vaguely Fascist, although Heinlein's later work (after "STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND") made it pretty clear that he was a raving Libertarian. Most of these later works are practically unreadable (for me, at least- too didactic and humorless, with not much of a story to hang the sermons on...).
But "De gustibus..." and all that! (FWIT, his best book was probably "THE DOOR INTO SUMMER"- practically no political philosophy in there at all!) By the same token, "FARNHAM'S FREEHOLD" remains an awful book, in several ways. The first time I read it, I couldn't believe that it was actually written by RAH. I thought it was someone trying to ruin his good name.