No would scare off some voters.

It really would not help the situation we currently find ourselves in. Many Trump supporters (current and former) have an average or higher IQ. They just bought into the idea that an outsider and businessman would do a better job than someone versed in politics. Many now understand that they were wrong and are switching back to the Blue Line.

Absolutely not. It is up to politicians to design their platform in a manner which is able to reach people of all socio-economic backgrounds.

Donald Trump is the POTUS today because Democrats have failed miserably to convey their message to lower class and lower intelligence voters. This is not these peoples fault. It is the Democrats fault.

Disenfranchising people because politicians design weak ass campaigns is just plain ludicrous.

There should be an investigation to the competency of Elected Officials. They should be held accountable for what they say and then what they do or what they promise and never deliver.

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.

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.

Intelligence is no protection from a bad decision. The problem is not lack of intelligence but ignorance. Ask the average American a few simple questions about our government and democracy and you will be appalled at the answers you get. Perhaps we should have an education requirement, but unfortunately that might mean that half of Americans would loose their right to vote. Apparently, even basic civics is no longer taught in the USA educational system and we are paying the price for it.

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'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.

The same goes for having kids start testing at an early age to make sure they know how to take care of them. Then require a license to actually have a kid.

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

Maybe, we definitely need minimums for jury duty

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".

This is why I voted "yes". Unfettered democracy is just as problematic as unfettered capitalism. We already employ two strictures: Citizenship and Age. We also require participation in a voter registry. Citizenship is reasonable enough, but I personally feel that age is a bit arbitrary. I think "Intelligence" is a better qualifier, but it too has it's failings.

What if there was a curriculum included in the public education system that was crafted towards cultivating the decision making capabilities necessary to make thoughtful decisions as a citizen participating in democracy? A seperate certificate could be awarded and it could be part of the compulsory curriculum for Juniors and Seniors. A test similar to the GED but oriented towards understanding voting and legislation could be available for those who choose to make an early entry into the labor force, those on independent study, or any other reason a young person may not have access to a public "voting" class. I think this would make the vote available to a broader demographic of electorate, but would help to suppress the influence of propaganda... I think a little philosophy should be included.

I think there should be strict protocols around such a curriculum to prevent the material from pushing a particular agenda. Who would create the curriculum and criteria? I dunno... let's do it right now. Are we not the people? I think it would be great if the document was a crowd sourced wiki... once we have a consensus and it seems we have a form, we can vote on it. In that vein, what do you think the criteria and curriculum for such a program should be? I haven't read the comments here yet... so I'm sure there are already some interesting suggestions somewhere.

For myself, I have some perspectives that I might like to share, but they probably need some crirtical refinement. I think conservative vs. liberal philosophy is a tension endemic to all social systems. I see it as similar to the difference between "All for One" and "One for All". There is always jockeying between the two to retain social "equilibrium". I don't prefer the terms "conservative" and "liberal" due to the social stigmas attached to them... I like the words "convergant" and "divergant" ... but without a lot of explaining, it makes it harder to transmit what I am getting at since not everyone uses those words the way I do. If you can, think of what the root of the "conservative" and "liberal" ethos is... remove the dogmas, and take the colors away, if you were just looking at it as particles behaving in a system according to their energies and charges. I'm sure other's have considered this in greater detail and done a better job of explaining. But I think it would be a good to inculcate an idea of the social body as integrated system of balance. Understanding HOW to correct a problem with the right vote, based on the symptoms that are arising, relies upon understanding something about how the system maintains balance.

Perhaps access to a ballot should be through a puzzle solving problem with faulty instructions.

Only if you can solve a puzzle even while being lied to about the solution, only then you should be allowed to vote.

Then we would know the right people are voting on the issues without regard to their class, creed or color.

Sounds like a way to reinstate Jim Crow laws. We all know standardized testing has inherent biases that lead to failure on the part of those from a disadvantaged background. Why would we want to limit the vote to a certain class? An intelligence test can easily be devised to eliminate entire sectors of the population just by including regional dialects or turning a math question into a paragraph of reading material.

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.

Consider a metric based on one's susceptibility to corruption. Only independent minds should vote; corporations are not citizens, but they are well known for having more influence in politics than any living persons.

If you can be too drunk to drive or too sick to work, you can certainly be too dumb to vote. Look at our current situation and tell me it isn't so.

I can’t agree with the idea of an intelligence threshold for voting - or for that matter an educational background. Both are fundamentally opposed to what democracy has to be: messy, infuriating but as fair as possible. Only allowing the ‘brightest and best’ to vote seems appealing but when we discuss this or try and define it, we’re usually talking about people like us. In the UK where the crisis and (in my opinion) idiocy of Brexit is unfolding the vote would almost certainly have been different had it been limited to the intelligent and educated. After all the phyricc winners - the leavers - still can’t come up with any sound arguments for their choice or the supposed improvements to come beyond empty, albeit emotive soundbites like ‘we’ve got our country back’ or straight up racism like ‘we’ve already got too many foreigners here’ (we haven’t, we desperately need more for the economic and cultural growth of our country).
Surely instead we need cast-iron rules about not lying to people in elections (that revolting UKIP poster implying that we were about to be swamped by immigrants) and the use of facts so that people can weigh these. An important example of the latter would be that immigration has consistently been show to bring wealth to Britain through labour and innovation than it takes away in welfare benefits.