I'm sorry this turned out to be so long but I hope you read it and try to understand each point I make. I left much out I wanted to say so if you have more questions I certainly can expound upon each point.
You - "how do we test if someone is allowed to vote?" This is hard to answer briefly and I'm going to avoid giving specific examples because without building a proper foundation for them they will seem baseless and perhaps even oppressive.
I have absolute uncompromising principles which teach me that the proper role of government is merely to provide ones safety in their person and property, and the prosecution of wrong doing. I see no reasonable or moral role outside of this. This would mean no one can vote themselves wealth and benefits from the public treasury. The majority have no right to tell the minority or even a single person they must forfeit part of their labor to fund programs, institutions, and agenda's they might disagree with. If a majority wish to effect some change by whatever means, they should come together between themselves and do the thing. But to force others into their schemes, whatever they may be for or claimed to do, is a moral wrong and crime. Whether one man robs and oppresses another, or a million men rob and oppress one, both are equally wrong. So my 'test', or standard for voting automatically restricts the possibility for people to vote themselves benefits from the public, or for those to promise that they will do such. A republic where people only elect those to administer the government's functions is what is needed. Not a democracy where demagogues can use the ignorant masses to overthrow the foundations of everything in the name of some righteous or moral cause. This sort of society would teach its youth these principles from an early age and it would create a responsible and respectable people who cherish their countries institutions because they work well for them, and all know that the laws which govern peoples relations with each other, and also govern the governments relation to their respective members.
I hope what I said above can sort of give you a better idea of what the standards to vote would be like. Since the people are taught from youth these principles, a test could simply show whether or not they understand what it is they are voting for, and how and when a representative should be recalled or prosecuted for abusing the powers delegated to them.
You - "I mean what kind of questions/tasks would such a test include?" What I said above answers this.
"You cant just ask things you need a high education for, as you would exclude poor people, that wont be able to get a good education to pass that test. You immediately create lower chances for poor people to be able to vote." This would occur, yes. Not that a test would consist of complex questions about things unrelated to society and its governance, but, so long as the poor are not being directly oppressed by the ruling class they will not have much need to vote. It's actually wise for an orderly and just society to restrict the poor from voting as much as possible because the poor do tend to be the most irresponsible, the most gullible, and the most easily controlled by the promises of demagogues. But the poor in all nations always have a vote stronger than the rich or those who may seek to oppress them. They have numbers. The ruling class has been overthrown many times in history in societies where during peace the poor had next to no power or say in government, but because the ruling class got too lifted up with power and pride they forgot that true strength is in numbers and a mass of people with a feeling of nothing to lose. This is a mighty vote that the poor almost always have and a strong deterrent against oppression because those in power do not want to lose their dignified and comfortable positions. In reality, the poor have always allowed the rich to live as they do.
You - "This would work, if the intelligent people would actually take into account what you need to do to help poor people, but thats not gonna happen." This actually has happened in the past under Aristocratic and Monarchical governments. We haven't exactly been told the full truth about our past and how the cultures and societies of our ancestors functioned. All we are taught is about the oppression, war, and suffering. Most know next to nothing about the societies themselves and especially are ignorant of the social institutions and manners of the people. A cursory study of history often leads one to have a false view because it neglects to study the details of the cultures and social institutions and only learn of the tyrants, wars, and misery. But think of all the time that is ignored and skipped over in general history courses. What were the times like then? Were all governments of the past oppressive and wicked? To have a sound view of where we are and why things are how they are, we need a detailed and accurate understanding of the past. There are many holes in peoples understanding about things which causes them to come to false conclusions. Today, the masses ignorance is exploited for the benefit of the modern Aristocracies disguising themselves as democracies.
I know you might ask for examples in this regard. I would recommend reading the historical fiction written in whatever time you are seeking to understand. Also, the nonfiction books written at the time you are studying are excellent sources for learning about peoples and societies of the past and if it was always just the rich ruling over the poor with wicked oppression. But you must seek out all sides and read everything you can so you don't end up becoming propagandised by one view.
One of my favorite examples is the history of my own people from the 1750's- 1860. William Gilmore Simms would be an excellent one to read. Time on the Cross by Robert Fogel is an excellent read. Eugene Genovese is a modern historian who I have many disagreements with but has many excellent works on the old South in America (and he wasn't a Southerner). Saint George Tucker's work on the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson's Note's on Virginia, Virginia's Convention Debates of 1788, The Speeches of Jefferson Davis in Congress in the years leading up to the war in the 1860's, and the two books of John C. Calhoun published in 1850. All this would need to be well understood to know where I'm coming from. And this would be only one example of a system which produced high amounts of freedom (even for the slave laboring class when compared to the free labor classes of the North in America and Europe), wealth, fiscal government, a charitable society, and protection of property -- all while having very strict limits on democracy.
I'm not saying it was a perfect because nothing human is, but the foundations which were established are essential to good government and fall outside of the will of the majority to change things at their own will (unless done violently). Democracy has constantly created convulsions in society as one majority takes control and oppresses the minority, and then their abuse causes a shift the other way and they are in turn oppressed. The French revolution is an example of mob rule democracy which ultimately ended up producing Napoleon.
Another important part of history to study to gain a fuller understanding of the dangers of democracy are the revolutions which took place throughout much of Europe during the mid 1800's. Granted, democracy didn't lead to the wars, but the wars or the one side were fought in the name of democracy and much injustice and suffering occurred because of it.
It's important to note here that history can't be studied in the context of modern thinking and understanding because we will force views and ideas on those of the past which were completely foreign to the views of the time. This will cause us to judge, rather than observe and learn from history. When we play judge, jury, and executioner with history we do those of the past, and ourselves a tremendous wrong.
You - "Regardless of if you past the test or not, many people still are into identity politics and will vote for whats best for THEM." Sadly, this is true, which is why I said my system is not practical in today's world -- except maybe in the societies which haven't accepted the modern ideas of progressivism. But even in these it's probably too late to try and limit democracy. Today people equate democracy with freedom which is a modern idea. People used to view democracy as dangerous to liberty and the order of the State. Progressives are now using democracy to change the fabric and foundations of society. They are seeing problems where none existed before. They aren't completely to blame though since the so-called conservatives and moderates are doing the same things just for different ends. Rather than people recognising that unchangeable principles and laws govern mankind, we've been reduced to being governed by the latest thoughts, opinions, and ideas of the masses which could shift and go a different way at any moment. This will lead to civil war if it continues because you have a section of society who want to hold to traditions and customs which humans have lived by for thousands of years, and others who are claiming new light and revelation about how things should be and that we must change now. If this doesn't end in war I'll be surprised. This is where democracy will always lead, it's inevitable.
You - "I mean thats the big problem with a test for being allowed to vote and Im very surprised you didnt adress this at all." I didn't address it on purpose. I was general because to expound anymore would require far too many words. You see all I've already typed above and this doesn't even begin to truly cover this topic. I'm trying to be a brief as possible, but even with what I've typed thus far I know it's not adequate to fully explain and articulate my thoughts and ideas. And if I try to be more specific it will only cause more questions and you and I will end up writing a book.
"The best government to have existed in modern times (post 1600) was the early American Constitutional Federal Republic of Sovereign States. "
"Wherent those the once that started their country by a genocide on the native peopl?" Not really. This is not really on topic but since you touched on it I must address it since I have a lot of knowledge on this subject.
It's important to know that history can be written and taught in a way to make people believe just about anything whether it's true or not. It's all in what is focused on and how things are spun by those recording things for posterity.
The early settlers had some problems with the Indians but they also had a lot of friendly relations with certain tribes. The relationship between the early white settlers and the natives is very complicated and multi-layered. The natives were not one large society but thousands of small tribes who often times were enemies of each other. Some tribes were war-like and very confrontational, while others were very friendly and made peace with the settlers. Their were also regional differences in how the natives were treated. The Puritans in the North were very harsh towards them in general, while the settlers in Virginia were more willing to work with them and be at peace.
The main fault the whites committed as far as I can tell was to assume all Indians as barbaric savages. Not all white men believed such at the time, but certain Indians were very brutal towards peaceful whites and would kill women and children. The reaction to these occurrences were often vicious and without mercy. Over time many whites began to have a strong feeling of hostility towards the Indians and overreacted in their ignorance. Rather than following the great law of love towards others including their enemies (as their religion commanded them) they responded in a human way which demands self-preservation and defense of ones friends and family. We can judge them now and say this and that was wrong because we have hindsight and live in a much less harsh time and environment. But not many of us know what it's like to find a village of 100 peaceful people and everyone of them slaughtered and tortured in horrible ways. We don't know what our reaction to living in such times would be. Imagine making it out alive of a situation like that but having seen your friends and family get slaughtered.
When the whites settled NA they didn't get here and confront a large society and civilization. They got here and saw a vast untouched wilderness. The natives had formed no large societies of their own and many were nomadic. Those who weren't nomadic still didn't occupy a lot of territory relative to what is here. The point here is they wouldn't have viewed themselves as stealing anything from the natives because the natives weren't using much of what was available. Even Columbus never did what people claim he did. It's popular today for people to claim he committed atrocities against the natives, yet no evidence for that exists. He wrote in his diary about some other explorers who had come after him who were committing horrors against the natives and that he attempted to intervene to stop it but it proved futile. He did write to the Queen of Spain that he thought the natives could be made slaves quite easy but that's about the worst of it. His theory in that regard later proved false because the natives never made good slaves and the white man gave up on trying.
For the first 230 years whites in NA never waged an all out war against the natives whose policy was genocide. I could teach history to make it appear that there was, but it's simply not true. When the founders of the 1770's and 1780's established their States independence and formed a union between themselves, they actually had a general policy of peace with the natives and formed many treaties with them which were respected for decades. During the 1830's you had the Trail of Tears where many natives were moved out of Georgia and relocated to the Oklahoma territory and during this process many died on the journey and it's considered a horrible blight on the US government. But even during this time most of the treaties with the Indians in the West were being respected. By this time not many were left in the east but not only because they were forced out but because many relocated themselves to get away from white mans society which was expanding at a fast rate.
The worst of the atrocities which were committed against the Indians occurred in the late 1800's (100 years after the US gov was created). The US government violated all the treaties their fathers had made with the Indians and committed many heinous crimes against them. And the case can be made that the US gov was trying to kill as many Indians as they could during this time. (General Sherman, one of the most evil men in American history, wrote in his biography near the end of his life that he regretted he wasn't able to kill all the Indians.) But ultimately peace was made and large plots of land was allocated for the natives and they were provided exemption from taxes and allowed to govern their own territory.
My reason for bringing up the US Federal Republic was not to point to examples of wrong doing in regard to how it was run by individuals at certain times, but to use its fundamental design and operation at the administrative level as the best example of good government in modern times where the majority weren't able to use the government to oppress the minority because the Constitution limited it's powers in an extreme way and allowed for the free citizens of society to flourish if they wished to and nothing in society could stand in their way and forbid them to use their own labor and intellect to make for themselves a happy life. Today, with mass democracy, such freedom is not possible without going through much trouble and compromising. As America became more democratic, the government became more oppressive and irresponsible.
You - "But to find out who is ignorant and selfish we would have to make those tests, that you didnt specify would actually test. Again, I dont see a test, that is non-biased, but as I said, feel free to give me a few examples of what they should ask in that test." I admit this would be hard to test because it would mostly depend on ones honesty. I don't see how this could be tested accurately other than by a court hearing which is not practical, expensive, time consuming, and a waste of State resources, but my point wasn't that it could be tested. I was only making mention of this because it's a natural result of mass democracy and unavoidable.
Me - "No other area of life works this way. Experts, and men of reason and knowledge who are trained in their respective arts"
You - "Yes, and you can also use experts and men of reason to make laws that prevent the uprising of ingorance." Yes, this is my point. But ignorant people often do not know what is best for them but only want what is easy and comfortable. Many of the old Aristocracies understood it was dangerous to give the masses too much say in the direction societies goes while at the same time doing what they could to help the poor through the churches and public charities.
You - "Look at germany at the moment. The AfD is getting more votes and the other parties are doing a good job at exposing them and they have alot more tools to prevent them from getting into the government." I don't know anything about this situation. I don't follow modern politics hardly at all. I gain nothing positive and beneficial from it so just ignore it altogether.
You - "That the USA isnt clever enough to have a proper democracy, doenst mean democrazy is bad." I don't think the American democratic process is any worse or better than Europes. In this, we are dealing with so many different cultures and mindsets that of course there will be differences in their results. The worst part about the American system in its current state is it spends way too much money on the military to maintain control of all their interests around the world. If the US stopped spending about a trillion a year on the military the US would have more social services and public institutions for the needy of society than the best countries in Europe have, but the US is a military State even though most Americans do not like it. 'Democrazy' (as you fittingly spelled it) has failed America in the sense that even though most people here admit the government is corrupt and wastes too much money and shouldn't worry about the rest of the world -- people still vote the same liars into office year after year. And the new people who do get elected just play along with what is already established while promising newer and even better things to come if people just keep voting for them.
"You cant make a state without regulations anyways so obviously you can regulate what a party can do and cant do to prevent control going into wrong hands." I agree and this is exactly why I brought up the US system as the best example of government in the past 400 years. Its Constitution put extreme limits on what the government could do because those who founded it were fearful of a system with the ability to grant itself unlimited power. This ultimately happened in the 1860's anyway, but the fundamentals of the principles which established it were sound and good. Evil men got control though and used it for their own ends while instigating a war against the section that was trying to stop their abuse of power. But they were a minority at this time and couldn't resist the physical force which ultimately conquered and subjugated them. For over 3 decades leading up to the war in 1861 the minority were trying to stop the corruption and progress towards democratic tyranny but it always proved futile as they were continually outvoted. So, the democratic process ended in war where approximately 10% of the people in the minority States died, and the population of their poorest and most needy class (the slaves) reduced by about 20% over a 10 year period. Whereas, before it was increasing on par with the whites for over 200 years.
Frictions all over the world are currently being instigated on purpose and democracy is the tool being used to cause it.