Not really. I could ask the same of a number of people. Shouldn't 10 year olds be represented? They don't get a voice. What about those that are severely retarded? Should we ensure that even those with the functional equivalent of a third grader get to the polls so they can be represented? A literacy test seems rather silly though as literacy has no real bearing on your current understanding of political hopefuls.
I would think that would be an obvious no - they do not have the capability of understanding who would represent them or how.
On that same concept, I don't see education or intelligence (beyond that of a normal functioning adult) particularly meaningful either. I know a lot of people that are VERY educated or VERY intelligent that are complete political morons. One of the smartest people I know is essentially a communist. Gates and Trump are both extremely intelligent people (you don't accomplish what they have without intelligence) but I would not hold any of their political views above that of my neighbor. Hell, I hold my neighbors view much higher than Trumps. There is nothing new there - if you had watched Einstein go about his day you would think him a child even though he very well might be one of the most intelligent people in modern history.
What I cant abide by is people voting that have not done due diligence in understanding the issues and/or platform of their chosen candidates. Most people vote along party lines or simply randomly select a name. How do you think that Alvin Green won the nomination for the democrat party against DeMint despite not even having a platform? How do we expect to have competent politicians that actually represent us if the electorate does not even bother to investigate those it is putting into office? The two parties FEED off this because they can continue to ignore the electorate altogether, fail to represent them at all yet still retain complete power over our political system.
Unfortunately, I do not support any kind of test or measuring stick to exercise the right to vote. I would LIKE to have a basic civics and platform test to vote BUT I don't think that is even remotely possible to implement. If you don't like the gerrymandering and current manipulation of the voting public then I dread to see what it would look like WHEN (because it is not a matter of if but a matter of when) one of the parties manages to gain influence over that 'test.' It WILL happen if there are tests or other such requirements on voting and it will likely end the right to vote entirely.
I would not mind requiring votes to essentially be cast on a blank sheet of paper though or a simple bubble sheet. At the very least, you would need to be able to write in the NAME of the candidate you were voting for. It would certainly take the steam out of those that keep voting a straight party line without ever bothering to see who those candidates even are. The presidential race would be almost identical but I guarantee that you would see massive differences in all other candidates. Most people have no idea who is running for the senate and congress let alone the local elections.
10 year olds ARE represented. They have very limited rights and very limited responsibility, the rest being in the hands of their family, who will then vote, you'd have thought, for their best interests.
Politicians do look to the family as an important issue.
Those people who have limited capacity to make decisions will have had their right to vote taken away by due process on an individual basis, along with other rights. An illiterate person has no reasons to have rights taken away from them.
The problem is, I think most people on this board don't really seem to understand how representatives will represent them, or not as the case seems to be a lot, seeing as big money seems to get a better representation.
How many people know what they voted for with Obama, Bush, Clinton? How many even cared what they were voting for?
Also you only have two viable choices, that's it. For many you don't need to understand much. The Republicans are the party of the rich, Democrats are the party of the poor. Are you poor? Sure, vote Dems. Are you rich? Sure, vote reps.
Who needs to know much else? The choice isn't there.
A monkey with a pencil is probably going to make a very similar choice to an intelligent person who knows what they's voting for.
Reagan managed to get elected without much of a platform but more of a personality based platform. It was more of a sales job than anything else. "There you go again" defined his first presidential win, it was a way of just ignoring any criticism of himself.
Your point about having a test and people controlling it is spot on.
However I still believe that Proportional Representation is the only way forwards, especially for the House and President. People are going to vote for parties, so let them vote for parties. You can have a German style system with people who are representatives of areas too, and then the rest of the make up of the House is PR. It works thee, you have 4 to 5 different parties, ie, far more choice.
Why expect people to think when there's not much to actually think about?
