Another component of a ruling competence test should be religion. Specifically, the candidate (for office or for voting) should be able to demonstrate an active relationship with the LORD of the Jews and a mastery of at least the basic doctrines of the Biblical faith (ref. and ref.).

There are certain worldviews that are simply incompatible with civilization (e.g., Islam). Still others are merely incompatible with freedom (e.g., Mormonism). Liberty was born from a Biblically Christian worldview and, I believe, must be protected by the same. Any would-be ruler or voter must understand this relationship between worldviews and liberty.

First, I'd like to cull a salient quote from this post from Vox:

The masses are clueless, but specific groups within them are more short-sighted and self-centered than others. That was the whole point of limiting the vote to the least clueless 10 percent or so in the first place.

As for Wayne's question, I think the first and most obvious "test" for whether one is fit to vote is one that was employed by the Founding Fathers. I am not allowed to vote on issues that affect a publicly traded company unless I am a shareholder. Likewise, I think voting in America should once again be restricted to those who own land. If you rent, good for you, but don't expect a say in how things are run. If you can demonstrate the basic responsibility required to secure and maintain a mortgage in good standing, then step up and get your voter registration card.

Unfortunately, it is not quite that simple. These past few years, anybody who can fog a mirror was given a mortgage, so it is clearly not a good indicator under such lax constraints. Furthermore, I would support a test that goes to historical and economic understanding, along the lines of this one.

Voting is not a "self-evident" right. The founding fathers did not consider suffrage, in itself, to be any sort of issue at all. Their concern was to craft a system of government that was best suited to protecting the rights guaranteed by God and His Law. The question wasn't "Who should have the vote?" but, first, "Should we allow voting?" (recall that they debated whether to make America a monarchy) and, lastly, "Which voters will be most likely to vote to retain their rights?" The answer, of course, was the citizens who understood those rights and the principles behind them, which at that time was white male landowners.

With that in mind, have a look at America since suffrage was expanded. (It is, of course, not universal; there is still an age requirement, and criminals can lose the "right" to vote.) Have we done a good job of preserving our natural rights?

Perhaps this should go without saying, but I think it needs saying anyway. I think candidates for office or for voting should be lawful. I think "lawful" should include obedience to the Constitution and Natural Law. Defining the latter is no small chore, but let's assume we can do so reasonably. (Being fundamentally moral, though, should easily fall under obedience to Natural Law.) I would suggest that any official action in opposition to the Constitution (e.g., voting for or signing a bill in contradiction) should constitute immediate revocation of the right to office/vote.

The problem comes in when defining who arbitrates Constitutional interpretation. It's obvious the SCOTUS is incapable of doing so, and this was never a power delegated to it anyway. Second in line, and perhaps most Constitutional, would be those with authority to vote. Is this workable? Are there consequences for the average voter (given they're limited to the least clueless per this thread) if they support unconstitutional actions with their votes (e.g., voting for someone who fails to meet this criteria for holding office)? Or might the courts be an acceptable means of protection if they were filled with only those meeting this list of criteria?

Unless armed revolution is always at the ready, per Jefferson, perhaps there should be an easy way for those with the power to vote to call into question the fitness of an official already in power, like a recall or impeachment. This mustn't be abused, but it still must be straightforward enough to hold government officials easily accountable for their actions without having to resort to bloodshed. Thoughts?

I'd also like to add arguably the most hated criterion: any potential voter or office-holder must be male. Besides the mountain of data Vox has accumulated supporting this position, I think this is most consistent with the Biblical outline of the roles for men and women.

Should there be a minimum age? Or is demonstration of competence at this list of skills proof enough? I think the latter. I'm recommending we forego a minimum age for voting or for holding office (Constitutional limits notwithstanding).

Here's where we are, I think, in our proposed list of criteria for voting or holding office (elected or appointed):

• Biblical worldview
• economics 101
• history 101
• landowner
• lawful
• male

He should be a citizen, too.

Or might this criteria define what it means to be a citizen? Hmmm...

In defining who judges Constitutionality--or arbitrating the voting/office-holding criteria--there's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. Assuming the voting/office criteria was already decided, either the voters or the courts should be adept to judge. The problem is in starting with a rogue system such as we have now. Assuming we could pass a Constitutional amendment that defines this criteria for voting, etc., who must be the arbiter for the criteria? Such arbiters must not already be part of the problem. Sadly, they would also require the potential force to defend their power (i.e., military and/or militia), else the present, corrupt system could negate their power.

Perhaps this could be left up to the states; it could even be decided differently on a state-by-state basis. Of course, the states tend to be nearly as corrupt as the federal government, so this may not solve anything. Let's see: the feds are corrupt and stupid; the states are corrupt and stupid; the masses are corrupt and stupid. Wow! That sucks. This could be the death knell right here.

Though (sadly) not emphasized by the founding fathers, jury nullification may be seen as the last stop-gap measure against unconstitutional laws. If juries en masse refuse to convict based on their belief that a given law is unconstitutional, then it is no law at all. Perhaps we might establish formal criteria whereby repeated and consistent nullification of a law by juries would lead to the abolition of the law, but it might not be necessary, as long as the law is unenforceable in the pragmatic sense.

Of course, I'm more inclined to support jury nullification if juries are restricted to those who meet the stringent requirements listed in this thread, as I advocate here.

No argument here, of course.

The problem I see, though, is in making the transition. Without the threat of force (i.e., revolution), what's to make the courts change their jury pools, abide by nullification (judges routinely abort such efforts), or the legislatures change the voting criteria? In the end, the threat (implicit or explicit) of force is required.

Military force is out of the question, being controlled by the corrupt government we'd be trying to lawfully replace. Popular support is also not available; how could you convince the voting public to vote to restrict voting to the "privileged" few?

How many in this country do you think would meet these criteria? Would there be enough to mount a potential revolution (the real threat of which would be enough to pass the Amendment and enforce it initially)? If there are not enough, then here's the plan: homeschool! If we can teach enough of the next generation about what it means to be American and free, we might find enough people to threaten revolution in order to pass the Amendment and lawfully fix the system. Then it's a race: educate enough homeschoolers versus outlawing homeschooling.

This may be covered by the "History 101" and "Econ 101" requirements, but I'd like to make it explicit. Another requirement for voting should be demonstrable literacy, along the lines of what was tested for in this study (previously referenced in this thread). Using the scale from that test, I submit that voters should demonstrate a level of "proficient" in all three categories that were tested for.

At this point, I'd like to add another item to this discussion. Assuming that our theoretical society, which restricts voter registration to those who meet this list of requirements, retains a court system that resembles what we currently have in America today, I suggest that jury pools be assembled in exactly the same manner they are today: from voter registration lists. In other words, to sit on a jury, you must meet these same requirements. This would all but eliminate a clever lawyer misleading a jury through specious arguments or appeals to emotion.

One might argue that with so few prospective jurors, such a system would unreasonably tax those citizens who, arguably, are among the most economically productive in society. I say, so be it -- at least, for a time. However, if one looks forward at the likely results of restricting suffrage in the manner being suggested, one sees that the legislators elected by such voters will most likely begin striking unconstitutional laws from the books. The effect would then be fewer laws, resulting in fewer trials. As such, this could be a workable system after all.

Good stuff, Dave!

Here's the running summary, then:

• Biblical worldview
• economics 101
• history 101
• landowner
• lawful
• male
• proficient literacy

Not so much a criterion for voting or holding office as it is a consequence of it, but should those who vote to support a war be conscripted to fight in it? This would seem to be limited to members of Congress, then. Perhaps they'd be much slower to do so. (I am assuming there would no longer be the power to wage war--or "police actions"--by the President without a Constitutional declaration thereof, given that all officeholders are subservient to the Constitution.) I'm not sure if this is necessary for the sake of accountability if there's a relatively easy way for voters to call for impeachment. The idea of shutting down government (for a shortage of Congressmen) during war sure sounds attractive!