I think, the ultimate ignorance is to call the mob around you, 'ignorant'- thus putting you in the hall of fame for hypocrites in the history of mankind.
Are you seriously that smart? Are you part of the 0.1% in the States that get into the most prestigious universities? I don't think anyone that smart would be stupid enough to call the people around them idiots.
It doesn't take a genious to determine when someone else is ignorant or uninformed on a particular issue, nor does admission to a prestigious university necessarily imply cognitive powers. And calling people around you idiots is a matter of word choice, not a matter of intelligence.
So my question is, is it right to let all citizens vote, regardless of intelligence?
To respond to your opening question, I'd say yes.
To start the analysis, I would begin with the roots of society. Society consists of a collection of individuals. Naturally they need to decide upon what things need doing and who will do them, so voting was born. Elected officials are given power so that we don't have to do everything ourselves, and presumably everyone benefits from the specialization and division of labor principles. At its very fundamental level, the "one person one vote" idea says that each person in the society has an equal weight and value to the society, in terms of the "direction" of the society, or in deciding what is beneficial to the society. Do we want socialism, or capitalism? Do we want nuclear energy, or solar energy? Do we want red balloons or blue balloons on july 4th? Those sorts of issues. Then everyone votes for the candidate who supports their position. However, their vote says nothing about how capable the voter is of enacting any of what they want done, it really only expresses what that person wants. To deny some people the vote would be the social equivelent of saying "what you want is not important" for whatever reason, whether it be intelligence or race or anything else. In this fundamental layer, the question becomes "are some citizens worth more than others?" But how exactly does one determine the worth of an individual to a particular society? Well, first you need to examine what the society wants. If hardworking industrial intelligent people are what the society wants, then they are worth more to the society than a lazy bum. If the society consists entirely of "stupid people" "rednecks" "idiots in class" and such, then a class clown might be worth more to that society than a hardworking student. If you remove any pre concieved notions about the direction that a society
should take (i.e. that people should help each other, be courteous, ect), then the only determining factor in the worth of an individual to society is what the society decides upon, and it is right to let all citizens vote because they all have equal weight. Imagine yourself to be on a distant world with an alien society that values dropping their women into volcanoes to please their gods. In our eyes, that's detrimental to their society, but thats because we have these values instilled in us already that we have a difficult time recognizing and thinking without.
If we take into consideration the unavoidable external influences on society, things change a bit. To survive as a society, we require a number of physical things: food, water, shelter, clothing, ect, so part of the "direction" of our society is predetermined (assuming the society wishes to survive, if not then this paragraph is irrelevant and you can revert to the above paragraph.) We must obtain food, water, ect, to survive, so those individuals best suited to obtaining/growing/creating these sorts of things are already worth more than others to the society. Hardworking people are more productive, intelligent people can increase efficiency and design better methods of production, ect, so in terms of worth they are simply more valuable than a lazy bum or a redneck who sits on his front porch shooting squirrels. Great warriors were valuable to the indian tribes due to the wars they had, shamen are valuable to african tribes for their wisdom, blacksmiths were valuable in the middle ages, ect. So if we examine what the society wants again, this time is has to be tempered by
how to obtain it and
what effect it will have on the survival of the society. The greeks destroyed themselves with a vote for war, because they didn't realize or couldn't predict the effect it would have on their survival. In this case, I would say the intelligent/informed should have more weight than the uninformed or ignorant in the running of the society. I would give them the power to say "no" to a vote perhaps.
In either case though, what is it in the universe that says developing nuclear technology is more important than sitting on your front porch shooting squirrels? Society, of course. And when it comes to the society I want, I'd like the redneck to enjoy sitting there shooting squirrels as long as it doesn't hurt me, even if I'd prefer to develop nuclear power. So I think everyone should have a vote. Of course, it still would be nice if people would take the time to inform themselves on certain issues.
None.