This may be a very unpopular comment but I have often wondered if we would be better off if there was an intelligence requirement for reproduction. If the education systems in the US were fair and effective, I don’t think I would wonder that. I mean no disrespect. This is an honest curiosity.

Anybody who pays taxes should be allowed to vote. If you're willing to exempt the inendowed, then fine.

Not exactly your point but who would pay for this? Who would decide what testing to use?

It's been attempted in the past. It targets the poor and minorities, primarily and unfairly.
It was used for decades, in the South, to keep blacks from voting.
It's been suggested for juries as well.
While it is always ideal to have a well-informed populace making truly informed decisions, it's also not right to keep any citizen from participating based on something so arbitrary.

There are a few more complex issues to consider IMHO.

If you define the methodology of how to measure intelligence, at what threshold does one apply the right to vote?

Are you distinguishing between Inteligence and knowledge (define knowledge and set the qualifying criteria for voting) An informed knowledge of a subject area might be recognised as a suitable criteria to vote on something encompassing that subject matter. Should I get to vote on things I understand the complexities of and not the things that I know nothing about? What is I'm intelligent but lack knowledge of anythin- do I qualify for a vote?

If you were slightly sub-threshold, then learnt a bit more or got a bit more intelligent, would you then be able to vote. How would you police such as system and administrate it!

Would it be in the interests of the intelligent people who choose the ruling powers/government, to improve intelect or knowledge, through schooling, if it would dilute the power of their individual votes?

Would an aging population, experiencing sinility, dementia, Alzhiemers, lose their votes. Would the elderly become unrepresented by their lose of voting rights.

Oh, I could go on and on, but I think I've reached the stage that I conclude that it wouldn't be a good or practical idea to restrict voting rights based on any other criteria than a minimum age.

In the UK in 2016, we had a Referendum vote on whether to Remain or Leave the European Union. The lack of knowledge concerning the complex framework of issues, was hardly understood by anyone. The result to Leave was largely blamed on the lack of Intelligence and critical thinking capabilities, that showed itself in a popular Nationalism and Pariotism "illusion" and a xenophobia and racism of Foreign nationals. I encountered great intellectual minds like Stephen Fry and also complete morons like Joey Essex, and the value of their vote was equal. That seemed shocking and unfair, and yet I fear that any alternative weighting in the value of their vote, would, particularly in the long term, be much more shocking and unfair. It would be the first step towards an ultimate totalitarian Dirctatorship and supresion and destruction of the masses.

Phew! Now add that little lot to your Poll! Lol

No, but we should have mandatory voting as they do in other countries. Too many people opt out of their civic duty and that's why we're in the situation we are in now.

I don't think there should be one for voting--too easily abused. However, I do think there should be one for running for office, and the higher the office, the more stringent the requirements should be. This will in no way invalidate the uniquely American belief that 'anyone can become President,' because you still won't have to be born nobility or wealthy, just have a working mind and a connexion to reality. And if people think that's unfair, they should remember that all kinds of other jobs and careers have all kinds of prerequisites, so why shouldn't running a major superpower have them?

I think we gave the whole representative democracy thing a fair shot, but it obviously isn't working. Anarchy anyone?

With the history of rules around voting including our new voter ID rules (which burn my biskets) I would say NO - unless they can be proven to be completely and verifiably unbiased - I don't think this is possible!

An intelligence threshold for voting may seem discriminative because it may not accurately reflect whether someone has a fair understanding of politics when it comes to voting. Having said that, even some of the smartest people can make poor choices.

So who would determine what it means to be intelligent?

No, voting requires good judgement, not intelligence.

I don't understand the big payoff for this information. How could this be used for future elections...? Just asking...lol.

This was an actual test used to suppress the black vote in Louisiana in 1964. It was only given if a poll worker deemed the person not intelligent enough to vote.

I'm shocked by the number of "No" votes. You really think it's better if the stupidest part of the population has the same sway as the most intelligent part? I sure don't. I think that's disingenous and naive. Do you remember what happened to Socrates? Democracy does need work... I don't necessarily agree with Plato's solution. But YES! I think some form of comprehension and competence should be displayed before given the right to vote. On the flip side of this... if we were to enact such a filter, we could lift age restrictions! I've met 12 year olds who had more wits about them than many folks into their 50s... it would be GREAT if those kids were allowed to vote.

I think intelligence is the wrong threshold. It should be about knowledge of the system.

On it's face, it seems like a good idea, but having intelligence or knowledge of who would be better to lead the nation is very subjective. Besides, wouldn't it go against what a democracy is supposed to be about? I know we have a representative democracy and not a pure democracy, but it still seems to stand that it is completely against what the U.S. "seemingly" stands for, even if it is a bunch of ego stroking and naivety in believing that. There is a lot of "grey area" in this debate. As others have already said, who determines what passes? It eerily reminds me of the concept behind the eugenics movement.

I agree that the word and concept of intelligence is a loaded word/concept. An objective evaluation of intelligence is IQ. I would suggest a bold concept: to segment the electorate into specialties they can vote on. Let me explain. Citizen voters would take a test, say, every 5 years. Within the test IQ and knowledge in certain fields are evaluated. Voters with an average IQ or above (100+ i.e. average) are allowed to vote in any election. If you do not meet the IQ threshold then your saviness in certains fields of knowledge will permit you to vote for specific fields like judges, public works, medical examiner. This implies that many levels of government are voted rather than assigned the position. Also the sniff test also applies to candidates.

I think there needs to be intelligence thresholds for runnning for office.

Einstein built a weapon of mass destruction and it was immediately used on a civilian population.
I think the information we receive on politicians should be handled exclusively by a non biased source.
Basically this would not be Fox News and CNN.
IF voters were fully informed on the reality and history of a possible candidate our system may be a little different.

I can understnd the desire to amke intelligence a requirement for voting, bu tonce you did that, you woudl create a group of nonvoters who woudl be "second class citizens".

Haha - if they brought this in now, based on his ability to string together a coherent sentence, Trump probably wouldn’t even qualify to vote at the next election.

How about this?
Everyone gets one vote.
BUT...
On the back of the ballot are four multiple choice questions. All are of a factual nature, and are randomly assigned from a pool of 100 questions that are advertised before the election.
They might include:
What percentage of permanent residents in this country were born elsewhere?
What percentage of the total social security budget goes to unemployment benefits?
What percentage of the budget is spent on foreign aid?
etc, etc.
However many you get right is how many votes you get.

How do you ever even know how or if your vote is counted? there should be an inteligance threshold for people who are voted for thats for sure.

Not comfortable with intellect determining a person's rights. That sounds like the first creak in the opening of Pandora's Box.