If I can expand Foster’s thought a bit, he’s making a simple argument: Democracy requires informed citizens, but the larger the pool of voters, the less likely the average citizen is especially informed. Far from enhancing democracy, universal voter registration might make it worse.
(It’s a classic “perversity thesis” for those of you who read your Hirschman.)
I’m sympathetic to this view, especially since it seems inevitable that more voters—even if they’re just potential voters—equals a less intelligent electorate. But consider this: The story of our democracy is of progressive expansion: Landed white males to all white males, all white males to all males, all males to men and women. Each expansion brought in “uninformed” people, and yet, the electorate isn’t less informed than it was when voting was the privilege of a few. What gives?
...
I said there were two things, and here’s the second. Conservatives have a genuinely different view of voting than liberals. For liberals, voting is good in its own right, and universal registration affirms that everyone is a valuable member of society. That they count, and their voice should too. Conservatives, by contrast, tend to see voting as a means to an end: Good governance and wise leadership. And if that’s true, then there’s every reason to limit the franchise; to put obstacles to voting and to ensure that only the most motivated people come to the polls.
But they should know that this argument doesn’t just apply to universal registration: It applies to every voting expansion, from the 15th Amendment to women’s suffrage. In other words, it proves too much.
Which is to say this: Maybe our history shows that, far worsening our politics, making it easier to vote is how we give all Americans a chance to be great—and informed—citizens.
