There’s no doubt that our nation is ruled by elites, but then, it always has been. The founding fathers were all highly educated men with (pardon the expression) revolutionary ideals, but they also believed that only landowners should have the right to vote and hold office. Today, that way of thinking would disenfranchise tens of millions of people who pay rent instead of a mortgage. Still, there should be some criteria for being able to participate in the political process. As it stands now, there are only a few restrictions on voting privileges, among them: you must be registered, you must be a citizen, you must not be a felon, and you must have voted in a recent election. The problem is that these criteria have everything to do with procedure and nothing to do with competence.
To that point, Georgetown University professor Jason Brennan believes that most voters are ignorant, biased, and misinformed. His solution is for our democracy to operate as an “epistocracy” whereby the right to vote is conditional on knowledge. Brennan suggests we establish some type of national competency exam to determine whether an individual is capable of casting an informed vote. Under his proposal, we could either use the United States citizenship test, or develop something new, so long as it is drafted in a non-partisan manner and not based on the ideologies of any one political party or group. It’s a sound approach, and one that party hacks in Georgia should have heeded.
Not long ago, the Republican Party of Catoosa County, Georgia, required all potential GOP candidates to answer a series of ideological questions in order to get on the ballot under the party banner. However, candidates whose responses were rejected by party leaders and who were kept off the ballot as a result ended up suing the county. The rejected candidates prevailed, the GOP paid hefty fines, and their loyalty test was scrapped. Today, political parties require candidates to sign a loyalty oath, but that doesn’t ensure a competent slate of candidates, just as registering to vote doesn’t ensure a competent electorate, and that brings me back to the concept of a national voting license.
According to a survey by the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, only one in three Americans would be able to pass the U.S. citizenship test, and according to goodparty.org, “Americans can’t even pass a standard civics test” adding, “Voter education is not just an accessory to the democratic process, but rather the cornerstone upon which a thriving democracy is built.”
Voter ignorance wasn’t much of a problem a hundred years ago because civics education was required at every grade level. The Heritage Foundation recalls a textbook from 1928, which stated that civics classes “strive to develop character in the student and produce an effective citizen.” Today, 30 states require only one semester of civics in order to graduate high school, while 11 states require no civics at all. Only nine states require a full year of civics in order to graduate. Clearly, we need to do a better job of teaching students how to understand and navigate our system of government, but until then, we shouldn’t be content to let millions of uninformed voters determine the outcome of local, State, and federal elections. That’s why every state should require its citizens to pass a basic knowledge exam before being issued a voting license, which, like DMV licenses, would have to be renewed periodically.
I don’t want to be on the highway next to someone who is unqualified to drive, and I don’t want to be at the polls next to someone who is too uninformed to vote. Both scenarios have dangerous consequences.
February 10, 2026 @ 1:25 am
Americans Need a Voting License
There’s no doubt that our nation is ruled by elites, but then, it always has been. The founding fathers were all highly educated men with (pardon the expression) revolutionary ideals, but they also believed that only landowners should have the right to vote and hold office. Today, that way of thinking would disenfranchise tens of millions of people who pay rent instead of a mortgage. Still, there should be some criteria for being able to participate in the political process. As it stands now, there are only a few restrictions on voting privileges, among them: you must be registered, you must be a citizen, you must not be a felon, and you must have voted in a recent election. The problem is that these criteria have everything to do with procedure and nothing to do with competence.
To that point, Georgetown University professor Jason Brennan believes that most voters are ignorant, biased, and misinformed. His solution is for our democracy to operate as an “epistocracy” whereby the right to vote is conditional on knowledge. Brennan suggests we establish some type of national competency exam to determine whether an individual is capable of casting an informed vote. Under his proposal, we could either use the United States citizenship test, or develop something new, so long as it is drafted in a non-partisan manner and not based on the ideologies of any one political party or group. It’s a sound approach, and one that party hacks in Georgia should have heeded.
Not long ago, the Republican Party of Catoosa County, Georgia, required all potential GOP candidates to answer a series of ideological questions in order to get on the ballot under the party banner. However, candidates whose responses were rejected by party leaders and who were kept off the ballot as a result ended up suing the county. The rejected candidates prevailed, the GOP paid hefty fines, and their loyalty test was scrapped. Today, political parties require candidates to sign a loyalty oath, but that doesn’t ensure a competent slate of candidates, just as registering to vote doesn’t ensure a competent electorate, and that brings me back to the concept of a national voting license.
According to a survey by the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, only one in three Americans would be able to pass the U.S. citizenship test, and according to goodparty.org, “Americans can’t even pass a standard civics test” adding, “Voter education is not just an accessory to the democratic process, but rather the cornerstone upon which a thriving democracy is built.”
Voter ignorance wasn’t much of a problem a hundred years ago because civics education was required at every grade level. The Heritage Foundation recalls a textbook from 1928, which stated that civics classes “strive to develop character in the student and produce an effective citizen.” Today, 30 states require only one semester of civics in order to graduate high school, while 11 states require no civics at all. Only nine states require a full year of civics in order to graduate. Clearly, we need to do a better job of teaching students how to understand and navigate our system of government, but until then, we shouldn’t be content to let millions of uninformed voters determine the outcome of local, State, and federal elections. That’s why every state should require its citizens to pass a basic knowledge exam before being issued a voting license, which, like DMV licenses, would have to be renewed periodically.
I don’t want to be on the highway next to someone who is unqualified to drive, and I don’t want to be at the polls next to someone who is too uninformed to vote. Both scenarios have dangerous consequences.