Should there be a test to voting?
There already is. Isn't there? You have to be 18 in the USA to vote. You have to not be a felon in the USA to vote. In many states you must be competent, as in not declared legally incompetent. You can vote early, but you cannot vote late, so timing would be a type of restricted access.
To vote and to know where and how and why to vote you must have a certain amount of political interest to vote. Would you want someone with no interests in politics on any level voting? They would randomly vote for the "wrong person" and that randomness would likely make your vote for the "right person" moot.
What other tests could you think of?
Is intellect a factor when voting? Or how about the degree to which one could be persuaded?
Would you with your studied opinion on how a candidate is likely to represent you like to be rendered obsolete by the person who "wan't to have a beer with that guy?" I would prefer my carefully selected vote be counteracted by another person's respectable well thought out counter point. I would vastly prefer that to a pulpit candidate selection.
Someone pointed out the ability to read. I would disagree, with dictation technology the impediments to reading can be alleviated. Someone who can't read is not necessarily less intelligent, or mal-adapted.
I can't think of a reasonable way to implement any bar to voting. Can you? Please like and leave a comment.
This is a response to David Pakman https://steemit.com/dtube/@davidpakman/i5s6sune?sort=new#comments
(Just to clarify, race, gender and stuff is not up for discussion. Your comment will be ignored.) Also saying it's unconstitutional is kind of dumb. We are discussing an action that would require changing the constitution. So of course it is.
