I must respectfully disagree with that sentiment, cpwill. While it is galling to know that everyone's vote is weighed equally (your vote is exactly equal to, say, someone who thinks creating a Caliphate, Stalinism, or Neo-Nazism is not a bad idea), I think all citizens should have an equal say in how they are governed. Both our national and state governments are Republics founded on the consent of the governed, and without the ability to choose one's elected representatives (or even reject all the choices) there can be no consent. Our country's founding revolution was based on the idea that our original government, i.e., the Crown of England and Parliament was illegitimate because the colonists had no representation in that Parliament.
I can understand that position entirely, and agree with the purpose you are driving at - I am by no means saying we should do away with representative government. I would even add to your critique another factor that I think is important: voting can function as a way of letting off pressure in a political system, like a steam valve. Mass disenfranchisement of those who do not pass a citizenship could result in a buildup of pressure that eventually becomes explosive, and that is something that such a reform would have to address.
That being said, in no particular order (I just woke up
), a couple of thoughts that I think are not so much counter-arguments as they are nuances:
1. Having corporate representation is not the same as individual representation. For example, my state is currently represented by a Senator I did not vote for - that "I" am not being represented by someone "I" voted for does not mean that I am not "being represented" in the Senate. Any system that is corporately representative will always have a degree of lack of individual representation by necessity. I agree this degree would be (at least initially) increased by requiring people to pass the citizenship exam in order to vote, but that is a difference in degree, rather than a difference in kind.*
*It may be noting that I suspect we would see an initial large dip in the electorate, followed by a steady rise as people (and especially parties and aligned activist groups) responded to incentives, and engaged in an education campaign. It's very plausible we end back up with a similar portion of the population voting, but, as better-educated citizens who have a better idea of who and what they are voting for.
2. I believe we may be looking at a distinction here between "Consent" and "Informed Consent". I could have a three year old fill out a form, but, she won't know what she is doing, and, so, can't be said to have actually "Consented" to anything. I could get a similarly uninformed 18 year old to fill out a form by promising him a t-shirt if he comes out with an "I Voted" sticker, or telling him that his friends told him to check the boxes on the right side of the form all the way down, and it wouldn't be as if that 18 year old was providing informed consent to a party platform or even a broad approach to governance. I suggest here that the citizenship exam could stand in as a (agreeably imperfect) proxy for distinguishing between consent that is informed, and consent that is not.
3. The portion of the populace that would be denied the
ability to choose their elected representatives in such a system would actually be very small, limited to those who lack the intellectual capacity to pass a citizenship exam, regardless of how they study. Everyone else will have the
ability to choose their elected representatives, and may just lack the willingness to actually learn the material that is on the exam. This is similar to how many people today have the ability to vote, and lack the willingness to register or show up to cast a ballot.
The only workaround in to such an exam was if citizens disqualified from voting on the basis of their poor examination skills or lack of knowledge were also subject to being immune (or partially immune) from being to subject to laws or to taxation.
I do not know if that is - broadly - true. While IIRC we do exempt citizens in Puerto Rico from some federal taxes (because they lack corporate representation at the federal level), people who are currently disqualified from voting in the United States due to their status as a non-citizen, felon, or minor are not able to avoid taxes or subjugation to laws.
