...would you favor denying the vote to people unable to make correct judgements, deal with political rhetoric or form opinions about highly technical issues? It

...would you favor denying the vote to people unable to make correct judgements, deal with political rhetoric or form opinions about highly technical issues? It seems that filtering the noise is far cheaper than increasing the signal, in this case. As to your position that "filtering the noise" is easier than "increasing the signal", I think that you have perhaps...shall we say, not carefully considered the logistics involved? But leave that aside. The danger with disenfranchising anyone, for any reason, is that of false positives. To paraphrase Blackstone, I would far rather that a hundred idiots were voting than for one wise person to be unfairly disenfranchised. Fundamentally, society works because most or all of its members believe that they are better off as members of the existing framework than they would be by moving away, rebelling, etc. The last time Americans were bound by laws and taxes concerning which they had no voice, they threw quite a party in this little town up in Massachusetts...I think they served tea?