OK then, who get’s to create the test? Who get’s to decide who get’s to create the test? Who get’s to decide who it is that get’s to decide who creates the test? (Turtles all the way down…) At each level there is an automatic bias.
Unless we get to vote on who gets to create the test, and that would work if everyone had an equal vote regardless of their ability to pass a voting test. 
Okay… So are you:
Entitled to the land of your choice?
Entitled to the woman/man of your choice?
Entitled to the car of your choice?
Entitled to the laws of your choice?
No. You have a fair shot for everything that’s available, but you have to earn what you get. You aren’t entitled to almost anything.
False equivalency much?
You say that. Nobody believes you. Now what?
So, Sage Rat, you’d be OK with someone like, well, me, who’s been voting for twenty years already, whose ancestors have been free white citizens since the founding of the republic, someone like me having his vote taken away–with* me having my vote taken away*–for failure to pass a test?
If so, fine. I’ve thought about it, and I change my answer. Here’s the test, one question:
Haven’t been around the board much this month.
Did something significant happen i missed?
Yeah, a but load of racist trolls.
Yes and no. Where a party substantially controls a state or subdivision, it’s a denial of due process to restrict party membership.
Yes, the United States is a democratic republic. It’s also a republican democracy. Anyone who starts quibbling over these terms as if it has any relevance to modern policy decisions is trying to pull something over on you.
Forgot to cite. Here we go: Smith v. Allwright.
This is still based on discrimination due to race. Is there anything which would prevent restricting voters solely due to party affiliation?
My “a republic, not a democracy” comment was in reference to a possible long-term campaign to get people to stop thinking of the US as a democracy, in order to increase acceptance of moves away from democracy towards oligarchy/plutocracy. Is there any basis for this or am I in CT territory?
Wait, are you asking if a state can say, “only Democrats can vote”?
We already have a test that substantially acts in the role that the OP mentions. And its legal.
It’s the naturalization test and English language test for green card holders.
While some people may be exemptedfrom the English test,the legal permanent resident spouse of a US citizen must pass said test before earning citizenship and thus the right to vote.
The test taker already has the right of permanent residence, and the responsibility to pay taxes. Arguably by passing this test the most significant change is he/she gains the right to vote.
I don’t think a test is even necessary. If we want a smarter voting base, that’s easy to accomplish: just have campaign spending limits and don’t promote the election. By now I would hope that every American knows what day election day is. If they don’t, then they can find out. If they won’t, then why should they be helped?
While I believe elections should be open to all, I do not understand the obsession with having a high turnout. It’s a voluntary act. Let those who are interested in voting vote, and quit nagging those who aren’t interested.
That was a fine post tomndebb.
I agree, but I’ll throw in some caveats.
1a. Though there were liberal Republicans in the 1950s-1970s, and moderate ones extending perhaps to 2006 at the national level. And of course there still are liberal, moderate and conservative Democrats.
Empirically, a successful Presidency has a big effect on the future voting behavior of those in their late teens or early twenties. Apparently a lot of our political preferences gel at that age.
Notwithstanding #1, conservatives reportedly have a more complicated morality than liberals do – for example utilitarianism is arguably a simplistic outlook.
I’m wondering whether a two party system is ossifying: a multiparty system might be more educational for the electorate insofar as it provides opportunities for plausible shifts in perspective. You don’t have to leap to one side or another of a big divide.
The OP: the illiterate have interests as well that deserve representation in some way. And Fox/CNN/network news have a big audience among the college educated, though much of their reporting isn’t very good. Most of the college educated here read neither the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, nor the Washington Post, never mind the Economist.
More complicated does not necessitate being better or correct though. There’s been a long tradition of capitalist arguments in favour of Utilitarianism (and they’re quite sound when addressing protectionism, trade tariffs and other such schemes, in my view). Mill, Mises and Hazlitt spring to mind. Unfortunately, Mill supported imperialistic policies in service of his Utilitarian view, adopting the same neoliberal or neocon creed of salvationary militarism (Chomsky talks about it here).
Say stepping on a crack breaks your mother’s back.
The validity of a democratic representative government derives from its ability to serve the interests of the majority of citizens (countering systemic bias - Mises claimed women’s interests would be best served without their enfranchisement). A democratic government cannot be said to be legitimate if it represents the interests of a narrow minority of citizens. Unfortunately, under a simple plurality system (I think the US has sometimes been called a “duoarchy”), it seems minority support for the government is inevitable.
But do the votes of the apathetic really add to legitimacy? They certainly don’t add to the wisdom of the electorate.
Is difficulty participating the same as apathy?
IMHO, voting should be compulsory, on a national holiday. I also don’t see why the purple-dyed thumb method wouldn’t work here to prevent fraud.
That’s not a theoretical argument, though. You could even use it the other way, we don’t know what would happen if there were real tests, not just used as pretexts for disenfranchising people you’ve already decided are not to be allowed to vote.
Yes, for land and car. At least in a post-scarcity economy. And the reason I’m not in the real world has nothing to do with the supposed virtue of earning things.
I’m not entitled to the woman of my choice because people have equal agency to each other (ethically speaking). I’m entitled to my choice of the women who would choose me, if any. But you don’t earn people.