Pubeocracy

I've been floating around a "radical idea" regarding voting for quite a while now, and I thought I'd share it here. The idea is simple- To make voting not an inalienable right, but an acquired right; a privilege. You've got to clear a screening test that will test you on your knowledge of current affairs, on present policies of the country or state, and on the policies being advocated by the people running for office (along with other aspects of their background if need be). Now reading this I know you're most probably thinking - "That's insane" . But really, it is very elementary. Agreed, it would be very tricky to set up such a system and procedure, especially when starting out with such a corrupt system to begin with, which is present to a different extent in virtually every part of the developed and developing world. They would obviously not favour such a system for obvious reasons that I'll get to in a bit. But getting back to the main point at hand, ignoring the question of how to set it up (which is by no means impossible), why is it so crazy? Think about it. The only criteria for a person to vote, technically speaking, is that they have pubic hair. That's it. Everything else is assumed.... quite falsely at that. That they'll be politically aware - false; that they'll be pro-active - False; that they'll vote in the best interest of their country - false; that they know what is in the best interest of their country because they know of the major issues of the country at that time, and the relation of the country with other nations - false,.... and on and on. A major reason why democracy at present doesn't work is that politicians are simply bought by corporations, and lobbyists, and so you largely are voting for puppets. But another part is that people simply don't pay attention to what the situation of the country or state is, what the policies being pushed by the candidates are, what are their track records,etc. The moment you have a populous that is aware of these issues and takes their ability to vote as a serious right that needs to be exercised, you'll  just as suddenly have a system which will put immense pressure on the political system which will permit no phonies, as it will be constantly scrutinized. The whole buying of politicians thing will be harder, new ideas will be required to fix old problems, and people will be able to determine if they make sense or not with regards to their knowledge of the issue. It won't be perfect, it won't be flawless, and it will have setbacks... but over time, there will most probably be a definite trend of progress, where by progress I mean making definite strides forward in fixing outstanding issues (market stability, development and prosperity,global standing, etc) .
That is what democracy ought to be, if you ask me and if I dare wish it to be such. You may very well retort that classically or conventionally that is not the true definition (which anyway would not be a wholly accurate thing to say), but even if it were... I then say change the damn definition. For me, the definition of democracy as is is not what's most important. The question ought to be: What system involving the participation of people will be the most productive, and will lead to maximum efficiency, ...both being seen with respect to the country or state? If that is the question, then just screening people on the basis of their age, irregardless of what they know at a bare minimum (ideally, what they understand should matter, but that is probably impossible to test in this context completely) is absolute lunacy... and I hope you agree.
When people vote of course some are informed, and some are not. The net effect by appropriate weighting , is that the impact of the informed cancels out with the impact of the uninformed, and all that you're left with are the constructively added up pubic hairs. Admit it, you know it .... we have a Pubeocratic system. Nothing more. Perhaps, something less.