From Selwyn Duke at the American Thinker:

Most of us agree that having an educated populace is a prerequisite for a sound democratic republic. We also know that not everyone is well-educated. Thus, it cannot be a good thing for everyone to vote. For those of you who had trouble following that line of reasoning, please remember that Election Day is November 5.

And one needn't be disenchanted with universal suffrage to agree. It's one thing to have one man, one vote; it's quite another to have one man, one obligation to vote. Yet we still hear that it's our "civic duty" to go to the polls. Well, no, actually, it's a civic duty to make ourselves worthy to do so.

And thus, is the first of many large bricks tossed through the voting glass.

I've tended to be of two minds on this matter. Once I firmly believed voters could be trusted to make sensible choices, largely based upon the idea of the wisdom of crowds. But the more I read on the topic, and the more I apply that reading against experience, I've come to see the point some make, as Duke does here, that encouraging everyone who can legally cast a vote to do so may inflict more damage on the Republic than having fewer, but more informed, people head to the polls.

Does that make me an elitist? Probably. But in light of the creepy Obama phenomenon currently underway, I begin to wonder whether it might not be wise to step away from the voter registration drives for a cycle or two and instead focus all that energy on creating a more educated, informed electorate.

A very tall order.

As a sidebar...an old theory on voter turnout is that the happier people are with the status quo, the lower the voter turnout. Conversely, high voter turnout shows discontent or, in the case of some totalitarian states that hold dog and pony show elections, universal fear.