I think you have to remember that the founding fathers had even more restriction on voting, somewhat with good reason.
Obviously I don’t agree that one should be of any certain race or gender. Nor do I believe that only property holders should be allowed to vote.
But we have serious problems with a population who hasn’t a clue electing leaders who are liars and cheats.
This includes many of our more popular ones.
JFK didn’t like the number of unemployed so rather than tackling the problem he changed the way the unemployed are counted. The result is that today we are told the unemployment rate is 9% when it is probably above 22%. We don’t know for certain because of the counting.
LBJ was facing a lowering GDP and the obvious costs of the Vietnam war so he came up with the idea of transferring all of the money from Social Security into the General Fund with almost no reporting. If that money had been left alone there would be trillions of dollars in the SS fund instead of IOUs and a SS crisis.
Clinton didn’t want to see inflation growing on his watch so he changed the way inflation is calculated.
The list goes on and on and in fact every administration since WWII as well as some before have cooked the books rather than deal with problems or even admit they exist.
Today honesty has no place in politics and that is a bad thing. The primary reason is that the voting public actually believes what the media tells them and that there is some required truth in what they are told.
So yes I do think there should be some sort of test. People don’t get out and vote because they don’t expect anything to change no matter who they vote for.
But if an educated public were voting on understood facts the country would be a better place for all.
Of course it would have to be a test that can't be scaled to fit any one position.