"If you don't understand an issue, how do you make a good decision that represent YOUR interest? " You follow the advice of someone you trust who has similar i

"If you don't understand an issue, how do you make a good decision that represent YOUR interest? " You follow the advice of someone you trust who has similar interests to you. Don't overthink it. "Requiring at least x% of people to understand an issue before the vote is legit would be a logical choice." No, it's a silly nondemocratic choice that can only end with the foxes running the henhouse. Who really understands this 2000 page telcom bill other than the Comcast lawyers that wrote it? Oh well I guess only they can vote. That's an absurd extreme but it's illustrative of the problems you're asking to introduce. The solution to low information voters is not disenfranchisement on a large scale but instead to go back to the core of republicanism: vote for some person or party to represent you and who's job it is to be informed about the issues. In it's purest form the voter at large only ever makes that one choice although he can change that vote more frequently.