The US Ought to Substantially Restrict Voting Rights

"...people most effected by the messes caused by the government must be heard, instead of a select few who passed a test. Every vote counts. We cannot allow ourselves to be silenced."The problem with the premise here -- that government's problems must be solved by the masses -- fundamentally misunderstands the nature of our government. Our government is an extension of the people. Any messes caused by government are messes incurred and tolerated by an electorate that keeps putting the same people in power. We have had government of the masses for a while now, and we can see it is not as effective of a system as it could be."Now, before I start arguing my side for legal and moral purposes, I should let my opponent know that the effort to suppress the vote is already abundant in this country."My opponent went on to list ways in which the vote is being suppressed. The examples are immaterial. In my opinion, some of his railing against voter ID laws and felony disenfranchisement is off-base in this particular debate. The kind of voting restrictions my opponent talks about is restriction for purely political reasons. All the restrictions target minorities, a group of people that generally aid the Democratic Party. Therefore, Republicans oppose liberalizing voting laws, and Democrats support doing so.But what I'm talking about is voting restriction for reasons other than petty party politics. I'm suggesting voting restriction to those who are most qualified to vote. The difference here can be summed up in the following metaphor:On one hand, a business owner refuses to hire someone because of their race ( i.e. poll taxes).On the other, a business owner refuses to hire someone because they're not qualified for the job (i.e. my idea)."Firstly, the fifteenth amendment, which says that voting rights cannot be based on race. The twenty fourth amendment outlaws poll taxes. Finally, the twenty sixth amendment lowers the voting age to eighteen. Now sure, these do not guarantee voting rights to all, but my opponent must agree that these all take steps in the direction of equal voting rights for all. So if we were to add a constitutional amendment to have a test to see if you could vote, that would actually be a step backwards in everything we have fought so hard for to this point."I agree that all of the amendments listed go along with the theme of expanding and protecting voting rights, but this theme does not legally or constitutionally bar us from implementing my plan. Sure, it would be a step in the opposite direction we've been heading, but it wouldn't violate anything in the Constitution. And to not implement the plan simply due to the fact that it would be a reversal of historical trends is silly; doing so would completely ignore the merits of my idea and the drawbacks to the current way of doing things."He knew that if a group of people were silenced, then the country's decline would follow. Are we going to so carelessly give up the right to vote to all, or are we going to be like Dr. King and fight to preserve those rights?"This sounds nice, but it lacks backing. Why would our country's decline soon follow if the majority of voters ceded their right to do so? I've outlined why we would be better off with more qualified voters, and I don't see how unqualified voters not voting is a problem, especially if the majority of them approved of such circumstances during the process in which this idea would be engraved into the Constitution.