The odds that your vote will swing the election are unbelievably remote. Votes matter in aggregate, but matter almost not at all individually.

The rational course of action is to take the time and effort you'd put into voting and instead use it to try to convince irrational people to vote for the candidate you want to win. That must have more bang for your buck than voting yourself.

Even if you ignore all that, then what exactly counts as voting in accordance with your own views, the facts, and the choices given? Does that mean that you vote for a third-party candidate who closely matches your views but has no chance to win. Does that mean that you vote for the major party candidate who's closer to your views than the other one, even though both are distant?

And then there's the problem that limits on who is allowed to vote have historically always been about oppressing people. For example, it used to be common to forbid illiterate people from voting. Sounds totally fine in the abstract, right? If you can't even read, how can you vote intelligently? Except that in practice it ended up being, you're the right sort of person (i.e. white) so we'll just do this test as a brief formality before you can go vote; you, on the other hand, are the wrong sort of person (i.e. black) so you have to name every single county judge in the state to prove you know what you're doing.

If anyone thinks we should be testing voters, please outline what kind of testing regime you'd use to screen out people who believe that, say, the Earth is 6,000 years old, but couldn't possibly be used to screen out people who believe that every citizen should be given $10,000/year basic income with no strings attached.