That sounds like one of those ideas that looks good on paper, but then human nature sets in and the 'only people able to comprehend the problem' become corrupt and we end up with a dystopia. I like the idea of dictatorship by benign technocrats too, but when they become corrupt we end up with a plain old dictatorship.
I feel it is much more damaging to have people weighing in on topics they have no clue about than it is for them to abstain. If a topic is brought forward for discussion where only 20% of the powers-that-be understand it it needs to researched further before any pen is put to paper making decisions permanent.
I would say this is simply unavoidable, but it could be mitigated if such proposals were written (or at least summarized) with an eye to fostering universal understanding of the proposed legislation. Failing that effectively excludes people who should have a say from doing so.
If you are incapable, for whatever reason, of understanding something, then that's one thing. Being incapable of understanding it because of the way it's phrased or the manner in which it's presented is vastly more common (the existence of the term "legalese" should be a strong indicator of this) and a far more serious problem, as it does actively exclude people who should and probably could express an informed opinion if being informed were more feasible.
Requiring at least x% of people to understand an issue before the vote is legit would be a logical choice.
You follow the advice of someone you trust who has similar interests to you. Don't overthink it.
"Requiring at least x% of people to understand an issue before the vote is legit would be a logical choice."
No, it's a silly nondemocratic choice that can only end with the foxes running the henhouse. Who really understands this 2000 page telcom bill other than the Comcast lawyers that wrote it? Oh well I guess only they can vote. That's an absurd extreme but it's illustrative of the problems you're asking to introduce.
The solution to low information voters is not disenfranchisement on a large scale but instead to go back to the core of republicanism: vote for some person or party to represent you and who's job it is to be informed about the issues. In it's purest form the voter at large only ever makes that one choice although he can change that vote more frequently.
I think the percentage requirement is an interesting idea, and I think we're on the same page in that requiring a concerted attempt to write legislation in a more accessible way would result in a natural increase in that percentage.
I think a lot of local laws are intentionally written in a language design to obfuscate the intention of said law. Add this to the fact that some jurisdictions have multiple laws up for vote at a given election which makes it hard to take the time to research.
One time, I had to vote on a law that would update policy to give $X to survivors of police officers killed in action. I had no idea this was going to be on the ballot before hand. I have a relative who is a cop, so part of me wanted to vote yes right away, but another part of me though about it for a second. Wait, it says update, what if survivors already get >$X? Is this money going to come from cutting teachers' budgets? Are they going to raise taxes for this?
I agree with you, I think it is our civic duty to make informed decisions about how our society should move forward, however, I think politicians are doing their part to make this as difficult as possible though.
That doesn't work when you still expect those same people to pay for it. As long as I have to pay for something, I will most certainly vote on it whether the available information makes it clearly understandable or not, and in the "not" case I'll be voting "no". (And by "clearly understandable" I mean both understanding the issue and understanding whether the actual proposal in question represents a net win or net loss for me.)
Voter education is the job of those who want voter money.