You know, that kind of comment isn't new. Our prestigious founding fathers had huge reservations about the ability for the common man to effectively vote on large scale matters intelligently. That's part of the reason we have the electoral college. Also restrictions like land ownership and the like we're put in place so the poor people wouldn't rise up and vote to take all the rich people's money.
Of course other reservations have come along. People didn't trust freed spaces to vote intelligently or in the best interests of (white people) everyone. So they devised measures to keep them from voting. And women of course couldn't be trusted, so they weren't allowed to vote, until they won the right to.
Everytime we talk about restricting voting access, or putting in measures that would indirectly prohibit people from voting, there are always sensible reasons behind them that basically come down to: I dot trust these people to have a hand in making decisions, also, they disagree with me, so they're wrong.
A test at the booth you say? Well who writes the questions? We still can't get a standardized test for high school kids that is race and gender neutral. And who grades the tests? You'd limit the liberty we all hold so dear far more than if you allow people who are probably uninformed to vote. It's pretty common knowledge that you're a huge Ron Paul guy. Wouldn't it be more in line with libertarian philosophies to just let everyone vote? To let the market, as it were, decide? Shouldn't it be our right as a nation to let the chips fall where they may, with the implication being that if the stakes reallly were that high, we'd recognize this fact and vote with our feet?
People are uninformed, but you correct that through education, not through prohibiting their right to vote.