But actually, stupid people are more likely to get viruses, and I've never fallen for any scams.
I guarantee there are people who are a hell of a lot smarter than you, know a hell of a lot more about many areas than you, who have very little experience avoiding internet scams (for one reason or another) who might well fall prey to them. Given enough experience would they learn how to avoid them? Yes. But in the mean time, their lack of that experience does not mean they deserve to fall prey to those scams - nor that we shouldn't go after and punish the scammers.
Sure you want that? Because if there are any questions on the test about Jim Crow laws, you're going to fail.
Well, we can set the bar wherever we like; the question was ultimately "can we have a bar at all".
Since some people seem to think that even asking for ID is too high of a bar, it's clear to me that there's a market into catering to extremely-low-information voters; not that anyone is every going to _do_ a damned thing for them, but you can certainly make hollow promises easily enough.
An alternate requirement if we want a higher bar than an academic test would be to require that one own land and have children before you're allowed to vote, or something like that.
Perhaps a combination of alternatives could be offered. The question I'm really trying to ask is whether it's at all reasonable to do something to increase the quality of the vote.
Absolutely. I'm 100% for programs to promote literacy and civic education. Reduce corporate political financing so that politicians _have to_ appeal to their constituencies. Increase the density of elected representatives so that each representative has a constituency small enough for them to actually reasonably represent.
Anyone who's read Plato's Republic knows the dangers of democracy, or is lying to themselves.