No, assuming there is true difficulty. I find that voting is much easier than fulfilling virtually any other civic responsibility. Heck, it’s easier than doing most things people actually enjoy doing. and requires less verification of identity.
So ease and convenience is just not the problem. Advocates for high turnout have done everything but kidnap people, tie them up, and walk them to the voting booth in handcuffs, yet a large minority still stays home in Presidential elections, and the majority stays home for all other elections.
I just don’t see any value in uninterested people being cajoled and nagged into making a choice they haven’t expended any thought or effort into considering.
The apathetic, along with the unapathetic, are taxed and governed. Anyway, in a simple plurality system, one cannot attribute a low turnout to apathy. There are numerous other factors particular to such a voting system which inhibit turnout, most important being the relative value of an individual vote being widely different depending on location.
I agree in principle with the idea, but how can a fair test ever possibly be made? A conservative jurisdiction would hold that anyone who believes that SSM or abortion is a constitutional right has obviously “failed” the test. A liberal jurisdiction would hold the opposite.
I actually think things like voter ID laws go a little bit to enact this in practice. If you are so detached from 2012 society that you don’t have/can’t get a simply state issued picture ID, you fail the test. No need for the “motor voter” law of the early 90s. If you can’t figure out how to mail in a voter registration form, you probably don’t need to be voting.