[From "Why Not Fewer Voters?"]

Much of the discussion about proposed changes to voting laws backed by many RepublicM%Mans and generally opposed by Democrats begs the question and simply asserts that having more people vote is, ceteris paribus, a good thing
[…]
Why shouldn’t we believe the opposite? That the republic would be better served by having fewer — but better — voters?
[…]
All eligibility requirements risk excluding somebody who might make a good voter, or a better voter than someone who is eligible[…]That doesn’t mean we should have 16-year-old voters — I’d be more inclined to raise the voting age to 30 — it means only that categorical decision-making by its nature does not account for certain individual differences
[…]
I’m not convinced that having more voters is a good thing in any case, but, even if I were, that would not be the only good, but only one good competing with other goods
[…]
One argument for encouraging bigger turnout is that if more eligible voters go to the polls then the outcome will more closely reflect what the average American voter wants. That sounds like a wonderful thing… if you haven’t met the average American voter
[…]
Voting is, among other things, an analgesic. It soothes people with the illusion that they have more control over their lives and their public affairs than they actually do
[…]
Progressives and populists like to blame lobbyists[…]but the fact is that voters got us into this mess