Were you responding to the "Internet voting" thread? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3221370 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3221370 As for your quest

Were you responding to the "Internet voting" thread? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3221370 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3221370 As for your question, I don't see a way to enact a plan to weed out "uninformed" voters. It'd be nice if all votes were cast on a rational basis, but current impediments to voting seem to tilt the system in favor of highly-opinionated, partisan voters over more laid-back voters. While some partisan voters may have arrived at their convictions through reason and analysis, many more are of the "angry voter" mentality. A voting system such as Australia's, which encourages everyone to vote, seems in principle less susceptible to hacking by special-interests. It is inevitable and sometimes good that highly-opinionated minorities gain outsize political weight relative to a passive majority, but we do not need the election system to make it too easy to do so. In effect, maximizing voter participation should align government more closely to the actual will of the governed. (It's worth noting that a statistically random sample would work just as well, with the additional benefit of encouraging gravitas in the selected voters, but explaining statstics to the general public may be a challenge in itself.) Also, while you may be right, I wouldn't jump too quickly to the conclusion that the best way to solve a problem with an important issue (governance) is to make it unimportant. Certainly one may try to reduce the government's power, but that is orthogonal to the issue of making sure elections are well run.