**In theory, this is a good idea because it ensures that people vote from being informed rather than influenced. But devising a 'test' that's not biased or exclusionary would be almost impossible in practice.** - It's [not necessarily true] (https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-effects-of-intelligence-on-vote-choice-and-political-attitudes-in-Study-2-Denmark_fig1_326683890) that having a higher IQ = a higher level of political awareness & making informed voting choices. Even people who are very 'basically' intelligent are [susceptible to influence] (https://www.theatlantic.com/membership/archive/2018/06/are-politics-hereditary/561863/) from the political views of their family/those within their formative environment, for example. - Also, 'basic tests' have frequently met with criticism in educational settings for failing to consider different kinds of intelligence. It would be hard to determine a one-size-fits-all format. And many areas of research and academia - like, for example, [social psychology] (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103118300416) - have been accused of left or right-wing bias. In a test, especially one with political motivations, this could show itself through leading questions. - Besides - this view is aimed at narrowing the voter pool, while the majority of democratic efforts work towards encouraging more people to vote. I would argue that that's [more of an issue] (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/30/why-people-choose-not-to-vote.html) - you don't want to end up with a minority elite subset who determine the results of elections. It's heading in a distinctly non-democratic direction.