My only rebuttal is that the competing Delegate/Trustee models of representation doesn't have anything to do with the argument that there should be threshold standards before someone can earn the right to vote. We could have two countries where each model is enshrined in law, but that doesn't change the underlying calculus being done by voters: Who will best represent my interests vs Who will best represent the interests of the country? That the questions are formatted differently doesn't mean voters aren't still performing the same action, i.e., expressing their personal preference for a particular representative out of many choices. Nothing about those models leads to or demands the conclusion that voters should have a minimum level of education or information before voting; it's about how representatives should behave, not voters.
Also I wasn't being forthright regarding my full opinions on technocracy. As I alluded to in an earlier post, I do think there is a legitimate debate to be had regarding it and democracy, a nuance which was clouded by my overly acerbic and castigating language (which unfairly and dishonestly put arguments and implications onto Brainchild that he clearly wasn't arguing for). The idealized form of each is appealing for different reasons, but in practice they look quite different on the ground (China vs US). I think you inherently lose standards of human dignity and equality with technocracy which is why I don't like it, but I also can't deny that it is probably more effective at addressing long-term macro-level problems/issues. The bittersweet nature of democracy is that we all succeed or fail together.
First, let me be clear in stating that 'informed voter' simply means that the voter has been informed about the issues that the candidates claim to address and that voters have also been informed about which candidates support or oppose said issues. That's it. The mandatory classes just ensure that they've been given that information.
I think that kind of information is necessary for a voter to have if we view representation under the delegate concept because the delegate representatives can't follow the preferences of their constituents if their constituents inadvertently elect representatives that don't follow their preferences.
In other words, the voter needs to know how to vote in order for the delegate representative to be able to follow their preferences, otherwise the voter may make it impossible for any delegate representative to follow their preference. In the case of some uninformed voters (the disadvantaged), it is possible that they may be unable to determine how to vote for a delegate representative who follows their preferences due to no fault of their own, and attending a voting class will allow them to make an informed decision in the election process.
In essence, if there are citizens of whom no delegate representative is able to represent, despite the citizens already voting, then the delegate representatives are unable to do their job. The representatives' ability to fulfill their duties is very much beholden to the competency of the voters, and I think this would be less of an issue if we made it mandatory to inform all voters of the political issues regarding their representatives.
Also, don't forget, I did say that the mandatory classes could be left to a vote.
