Editor's note: LZ Granderson writes a weekly column for CNN.com. A senior writer and columnist for ESPN The Magazine and ESPN.com, he has contributed to ESPN's "Sports Center," "Outside the Lines" and "First Take." He is a 2011 and 2010 nominee and the 2009 winner of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation award for online journalism and a 2010 and 2008 honoree of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association for column writing. Watch Granderson on "CNN Newsroom" at 9 a.m. ET Tuesday.

Grand Rapids, Michigan (CNN) -- Should ignorant people be allowed to vote?

A provocative question for sure; however, I'm not bringing it up for shock value, but rather to give us all pause.

If I were to ask you to ingest an unknown medicine from someone who knew nothing about the medical field, you probably wouldn't do it. And I doubt many of us would feel comfortable as a shareholder in a company that asked people who knew nothing about business to hire its next CEO?

Yet we all know someone who gleefully admits they know nothing about politics, doesn't have time to find out what the current issues are or even know how the government works, but goes out and votes. Want to know why it seems Washington is run by a bunch of idiots? Blame this hiccup in our political system for starters. What's a solution? Weed out some of the ignorant by making people who want to vote first pass a test modeled on the one given to those who want to become citizens.

In an effort to win over ignorant voters, political campaigns are no longer targeting the movable middle as much as the easily misled. Instead of intelligent debates about important topics such as health care reform and cash-strapped states, we have an exchange of easy to remember catchphrases such as "Obamacare" and "War on Unions" -- all in the race to pander to people who can't explain what Congress does.

Or have a firm grasp of how tax dollars are spent.

In an effort to win over ignorant voters, political campaigns are no longer targeting the movable middle as much as the easily misled.
In a recent CNN poll, more than a third of the people questioned wanted to see cuts in military spending, which is a good debate to have. The problem is the poll also revealed most Americans think the military takes up 30 percent of the budget when in reality it's 19 percent. If we don't know how much money is being spent, how can we intelligently say it's too much? And what to make of the 20 percent of folks polled who believe public broadcasting represents 10 percent of the budget, when it's more like a 10th of 1 percent?

I'm not suggesting someone needs to be a Rhodes scholar to vote.

But voters should at least be able to name the three branches of government. Voters should understand what a "trade deficit" is and how laws are made.

Before getting all bent out of shape by my assertion that you or someone you love is ignorant, please know I am not referring to the dictionary's first definition of the word, which typically means an uneducated or unsophisticated person. I am operating with the second usage, defined as a lack of knowledge in a specific area.

No one is omniscient; we're all ignorant about something.

I know close to nothing about the inner workings of my car, and so I come to my mechanic, ignorant -- but not stupid. As this relates to voting, if people don't know much about current government and politics, they too are ignorant, not necessarily stupid. The difference is that naively paying too much for repairs on a car is not nearly as damaging to foreign policy as a bunch of ignorant voters hitting the polls.

Am I advocating for some sort of elitism?

You betcha.

One of the more counterproductive byproducts of having our political system hijacked by campaigns obsessed with ignorant voters is that the word "elite" has been saddled with terrible PR. True, one boilerplate definition essentially means "rich snobs" but another -- and the one more central to my point -- means the best or most skilled in a group. We don't seem to have a problem understanding the importance of having elite athletes on our favorite sports team, but some of us have been trained to have a gag reflex at the very mention of the country's elite thinkers running the country.

The Founding Fathers were not a bunch of average Joes with gripes about England; they were elite thinkers and philosophers. James Madison attended what is now Princeton. John Hancock went to Harvard. Thomas Jefferson enrolled at the College of William and Mary when he was 16. Today it seems the more education a candidate has, the harder he or she has to work to distance him or herself from it.

So how do we weed out ignorant voters without harking back to the days of poll taxes and Jim Crow? I would start by making the U.S. Naturalization Test -- given to immigrants who want to become citizens -- part of the voter registration process.

If knowing the number of years a senator is elected to serve is required of anyone who wants to become a U.S. citizen, is it too much to expect that information to be common knowledge for those of us who already are? This has nothing to do with who a person is or how they may vote but everything to do with a person voting as an informed citizen, not a sound bite regurgitator. Having a grasp of current events would be ideal, but if we could at least raise the required investment to engage in the political system, perhaps the tone of the rhetoric surrounding it can be elevated as well.

We wouldn't issue a driver's license to someone unable to pass the written test, knowing the potential damage that person could do behind the wheel. Why do we look at voting differently?

While the Constitution lists the reasons why a citizen cannot be denied the right to vote, it does not explicitly say it is a federal right. This is why felon disenfranchisement and mental competency laws, as they pertain to voting, vary from state to state.

I'm not suggesting we kick people out of the political process, only that we require them to have an agreed upon understanding of what that process is. If people are too busy to read up on the government, the Department of Homeland Security is not going to escort them out of the country -- or take away away their citizenship. At any point in which ignorant voters are fed up with being on the outside looking in, they can go to the post office, pick up a brochure with all of the questions and answers in it, and study free of charge.

Sounds harsh?

It is.

But at this crucial juncture with at least two wars, a budding energy crisis, a growing trade deficit, etc., do we really have the luxury of hand-holding? There simply needs to be more required of us as responsible voters than being born 18 years ago. Perhaps if we weed out the ignorant voters, politicians will no longer feel the need to dumb down the conversation in hopes of getting their attention.

And then if we're really lucky, maybe the ignorant politicians will go away as well.

At least one can dream.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of LZ Granderson.

The problem is the poll also revealed most Americans think the military takes up 30 percent of the budget when in reality it's 19 percent. If we don't know how much money is being spent, how can we intelligently say it's too much? And what to make of the 20 percent of folks polled who believe public broadcasting represents 10 percent of the budget, when it's more like a 10th of 1 percent?

Who is one of your State's US Senators?
Who did we fight in the Revolutionary War?
Who gave the Gettysburg Address?

But what do any of those questions have to do with your fitness to make an educated decision in a current day election? What bearing, for example, does knowledge of your state government have in a federal election?

I don't necessarily agree with the columnists examples of appropriate questions but what we are currently doing "If you breathe you can vote" clearly isn't working. A basic understanding of the economy, the world, the current state of our country should be required of all voters.

It's not "elitist" and I could give anecdotal evidence of the failures of the current system but really anecdotal evidence is fairly meaningless.

We are rapidly descending into voters voting themselves bread & circuses at the expense of the future. How would those of you who object to this kind of 'test' resolve the situation?

It must, or we do a disservice to the process itself.

But where do you stop?

Why stop at just excluding the stupid. Why not exclude those of average intelligence also and leave the decision making to the brightest and best educated of society. Obviously they would make better decisions wouldn't they?

I honestly wish only those who were intelligent, or, willing to serve their country had a right to vote in federal elections.

Just make sure its constitutional that no law made can affect only non voters or voters. And said Constitutional law could not be voted down for any reason.

The reason America worked... it gave people a voice reguardless of stature or ability.

I'm curious how your economics courses have been of such value if you are not in a business or economics related field of work/study. Because to be honest, my microeconomics and macroeconomics courses did not contain much information that I found would be relevant to the average person's life.

How to balance a budget, manage household accounts, etc? I can see that as being necessary and something that should be required in school, but requiring a course in economics would be like requiring cannons to hunt pheasant.

I still don't see how not knowing what month the Civil War began has anything to do with voting.

We, as a country, need to fix our political system so that the real and growing problem of our debt can be addressed. The place to fix it is the root cause: us. So, how to do that becomes the question. Too many uninformed people vote; whether they be democrats or republicans, the uninformed outnumber the informed in this country. Meanwhile the media, the institution that was supposed to keep the citizenry informed, only worries whether to cover Lady Gaga or Michele Bauchman (sp). They no longer even bother to pretend they are informing the masses, they let the masses inform what they cover.

Yes, deciding who could possibly develop a series of current event questions in an unbiased way would be close to impossible, but we have to do something and nobody has come up with anything better that I have seen.

So, let me get this straight. Your solution to a lazy, uninformed populace is to implement a lazy and uninformed solution? Understand that this is a self-correcting problem. I'm not going to get all Jeffersonian on you, but it truly is. We don't need to correct anything about the voting process (beyond the obscene gerrymandering).

I would answer simply: Nobody who believes that we can balance the budget by either just 'taxing the wealthy' or 'spending cuts'. Let's also include nobody who believes we can do nothing or those who believe we can be fair to future generations while still taking today's level of care of the elderly. And nobody who thinks that today's recession/recovery? and budget woes can be completely blamed on W. In fact, let's just say nobody should set the standard who believes any of the rhetoric coming from either party.

We, as a country, need to fix our political system so that the real and growing problem of our debt can be addressed. The place to fix it is the root cause: us. So, how to do that becomes the question. Too many uninformed people vote; whether they be democrats or republicans, the uninformed outnumber the informed in this country. Meanwhile the media, the institution that was supposed to keep the citizenry informed, only worries whether to cover Lady Gaga or Michele Bauchman (sp). They no longer even bother to pretend they are informing the masses, they let the masses inform what they cover.

"Gordon Keith: This month marks the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War; in which month did the Civil War start?"

Because it's a ridiculously easy question to answer based on how it was phrased. I think that's the point they were attempting to make.

So shouldn't we be promoting improved civic education in school?

Hahaha... well I like to think I'm fairly sharp, but I skimmed pretty quickly and missed that entirely! Guess I can't vote! :p

How is a lazy, uninformed populace self-correcting without revolution? Is that what you are advocating? Please do give me some advanced warning so I can get the hell out.

The other option is that ineptitude will force the population to educate themselves. You think voters in Flint, MI are going to be voting primarily family values in the future with their area in such horrible shape? Likely not, many will move and take their ignorance with them, others will adjust by finding candidates that are better able to represent them and their needs. If not, the cycle continues until the country can no longer sustain itself (revolution, not necessarily the armed kind) or the populace is forced to face their ignorance and adjust.

Bovinity asked "Who exactly is so brilliant, so intelligent, so perfect in their voting choices that they get to stand up and tell the rest of us that we need to pass some kind of test to be on their level?".

I would answer simply: Nobody who believes that we can balance the budget by either just 'taxing the wealthy' or 'spending cuts'. Let's also include nobody who believes we can do nothing or those who believe we can be fair to future generations while still taking today's level of care of the elderly. And nobody who thinks that today's recession/recovery? and budget woes can be completely blamed on W. In fact, let's just say nobody should set the standard who believes any of the rhetoric coming from either party.

Personally I'd prefer we get better math and science(and a few categories of the arts) taught in schools before we think too hard about civics. The former category will teach you how you think differently/deeper in a much broader fashion than civics studies will. Studying civics isn't going to do a damned thing for someone's analytical capability. In the end what you'll end up learning is random facts on top of the norms and standards of today's accepted view of what government is/was/can be, which will change every decade.

First, the uninformed will one day look in the mirror and realize that they are uninformed? Really? While the media feeds them non-informative drivel about Trump, birther questions, abortion rights being put at risk, etc.? I find that difficult to believe.

Moving resolves nothing unless they leave the country.

"Finding candidates that better represent them and their needs" is pretty much what has gotten us into this mess. Most people don't look beyond their own wallets and desires when deciding where to cast their vote. Today's mantras of 'tax the rich & corporations but don't cut any spending programs' and 'cut every spending program you can find except the bloat that is defense but don't raise taxes' are perfect examples of the sport-like fanboism that is our political system. People have begun looking to government to solve everything and make it bearable if they can't resolve it. Expecting the uninformed to somehow to wake up and look at the broader picture is rather naive. That statement coming from you, Elessar, makes me worried that my assessment of the direction our country is headed was maybe too optimistic.

Finally, "the cycle continues until the country can no longer sustain itself" is probably the future but I do believe that we have a duty, let's call it patriotic, to try and do something to shift the country onto a track that doesn't go off a cliff. I'm not sure what the solution is but the cause is clear: uninformed voters who expect government to magically provide everything they or their neighbors might need at little or no cost.

Kula, I think you've shown just how easily it is to twist this to one's own political gain. And it didn't even have to get beyond the originator to happen. It's just too easy, and anyone could fall into that trap, wittingly or not. That's why such a system should never be implemented.

Again, I'm thinking longterm here about the overall process and why changing voting laws is the exact thing we should NOT be doing. You state that people look to government for everything, but you would advocate legislation that would prevent them from correcting this very problem?

That's a ridiculous oversimplification. To be honest, that's a factor, but a smaller one. The larger factor stems from uneven regulation (too much period, but too little where necessary) and an artificial, corporate driven aristocracy that does little to represent the actual people.

I agree in general that this essay is a direction we cannot take, but.... I do want to support Kula in the sense that I can understand the incredible frustration of seeing people being so easily mislead-- blatant lies about bills being used to justify political positions (Death panels! for example) that actually work in the minds of people who don't care enough to check can make you just want to give up.

I don't think we have the luxury of waiting another 50 years to have an informed voting culture. ... I think we need to do something and we need to do it sooner rather than later. So, I'm open to ideas...

The news wasn't that Kyl made a mistake; it was his staff essentially acknowledging that in the current hyper-partisan environment, facts are a secondary concern, even on the floor of the U.S. Senate, even when they are paraded as statistics. The important thing is to scare the hell out of people so that they remember your political point and pass it on.

I don't think we have the luxury of waiting another 50 years to have an informed voting culture.

Do you believe that the voting culture now is less informed than that of 50 years ago? 100 years ago?

Here's where I am with this at the moment. I'll try to keep it short and simple.

Science and math can teach analytics. And as the world gets more technologically advanced, they're given more and more importance. There are good, high-paying jobs that use those skills. But relatively few, and even fewer that rely on that specific knowledge. What percentage of this year's graduating class will need calculus or chemistry in their daily lives?

Similar analytical skills can actually be developed through foreign language training. Depending on where you live, that specific knowledge could be much more useful, much more memorable, and much more immersive. I think I would have been better served by a year of Spanish in high school, instead of calculus. And yes, arts can also be very beneficial, but I can't speak to that right now.

But where high school math and science teach at a micro level, dealing with specific examples that students can't directly relate to, civic education offers an opportunity to address the macro scale. Math and science are certainly different, and maybe even deeper, but not broader. Not at all; definitely not what's taught at the high school level.

Civics shouldn't be about memorizing what month the civil war started or the names and states of each of the signers of the Constitution. We can give students a chance to look at society, figure out where we came from, what made it what it is today, and how those students fit in and can adapt it for their needs: understanding and solving real world problems.

And you know what, they can do that in an analytical way, too. So I guess I haven't fallen off my rocker after all.

As for your comments about people not caring about politics, I kind of agree. There are people in Washington and people who cover Washington who think they're in Hollywood. We need an electorate who cares about policy, but politics are sort of the way to get there.