Can the ignorant be disenfranchised if they don't know what the word means?

A somewhat controversial opinion piece made the rounds of my contacts' Gchat statuses today.  Better known to me as a sometimes-interesting commentator on sports and surrounding issues, LZ Granderson took to his new CNN platform to argue that the ignorant should not be able to vote.  Response among my friends seemed generally positive.  I'm less comfortable with the idea.

 Granderson's main proposal is that all voters be required to pass a basic level civics test to be able to vote.  If the CNN poll accompanying the article is any guide, it wouldn't be that challenging.  I got 9 of 10, really just booting one I should have gotten...  Sounds simple enough?


The latent social scientist in me wants to know if dumb voters are really a problem.  A quick Google search informs me that, apparently, "We’ve known for many years that education is among the best predictors of voting" (Abstract Politics).  The effect was about a modest 10% in some studies, up to a more compelling 44% in others.  And Wikipedia's numbers tell me that over half the country has some college education.  So, I don't think we rational elite are being overrun at the polls; in fact, we could probably outvote them anyway if it came down to a clear "smart vs. stoopid" election (back of the envelope math -- 55% of the population somewhat "smart" and, say, 20% more likely to vote, gives me a pretty safe near-60% to the smart).

OK, that aside, my question is, does it help us if more voters know how many Senators there are, or that the Speaker of the House is third in line for the Presidency (yup, that's the one I tanked)?  Does studying for one test really make voters more rational?  That does nothing to ensure that they have any clue what the candidates stand for, which I'd consider the real problem with our democracy.

But I'm not going to advocate some different pre-voting test where would-be voters have to identify candidates backgrounds, records, platforms, etc.  There's just no way it could be administered fairly.  Who decides what makes that test?  What can you ask about that wouldn't prime voters one way or another?  Is there anyone out there independent and unbiased enough?  Who picks those people?  No, that's way to problematic.

This leads me to my real gripe about politics.  Democrats and Republicans both think that there's some truly objective set of facts on the issues out there, and these obviously point in their favor as any rational person would see.  Notice any problems there?  Really, both sides deal in opinions, only at times backed by unreliable, biased research of some kind. The differences are almost never about pure truth.  It's about what you value higher: freedom or equality.  If that doesn't put too noble a spin on the whole political game.

How on Earth did this image come up in a search for "lies damn lies and statistics"?