Who would write the questions? Who would determine who is/isn't fit to vote?

1. If it's the ruling party, then there's no way they would write unbiased questions.

2. If it's the opposition party, then there's no way they would write unbiased questions.

3. If it's a combination of the two, then no questions would get written in time.

4. If it's a third party, then who vets/selects them, and who can be a part of it? GOTO 1

> But the question I am really asking is, would it be so bad if the number of eligitable voters were smaller, but they were more informed?

That's incredibly dangerous. Who decides who is 'informed' and not? I bet most (all?) voters think they are informed.

The questions don't even have to be unbiased, they just have to be something you would know only if you have actually looked into it. They aren't meant to ensure that you have equally read all sides, just that you have done some research.

Each question would be assigned some score, and you would need a certain minimum to pass.

As long as everybody is given the same test, and that the questions are objective, the same determination would be made for everybody, no matter what their political leanings were, so in a sense whatever knowledge you require your opponents to know, you would also your side to know.

Even if it is so blatantly biased that every single question is a positive statement about Hillary (say), wouldn't you want somebody voting against her to do so on an informed basis, and so as a minimum they should know her platforms/positions?

The bias I am referring to is not favoring one candidate over another in the wording of the questions, but rather to disqualify voters who may not vote the same way as you. An example might be "what did candidate XYZ say 3 years ago on this random radio talk show", and only die-hard supporters would be able to answer it correctly. (There are likely much better examples of what I am trying to convey here, but my caffeine level is dangerously low)

That's actually how they stopped black people from voting in the south in the late 19th century - they asked easy questions of the white voters and hard (to impossible) questions of the black voters.

>"what does THINK_TANK believe will happen to the economy under Trumps tax plan" (as opposed to "what is likely to happen under Trumps tax plan", so there would be no political disagreements)

You're giving people too much credit. When showed the controversial comparison photos of Obama's and Trump's inauguration crowds and asked which photo depicted a larger crowd, some Trump supporters indicated the Trump inauguration simply because they recognized the controversy and refused to give any credence to the perceived insult, even going so far as to give an obviously false answer on an ostensibly objective poll.