The idea of a test is problematic from yet
another point of view. Even before we talk
about conflicting values, who determines
what are the essential issues that the
country faces? Is it security? (questions
on Lebanon, The Golan, etc.)
Is it economics? (questions on
unemployment, budget deficit, taxes?)
Is it religion? (fill it in yourselves...)

And what is the fate of a person that
knows definitely about unemployment,
because he has no job and wants one, but
doesn't know where the Golan is? Does this
mean his vote is unimportant? So will he
need to know a minimum on all the
subjects? Or to know one subject very
deeply?
For example, isn't it so that the fact
that so many people voted for Shas tells
us something about how bad our education
system deals with the poor? Did we know
before this voting that the problem with
the existing system is THAT big?
Popular voting is a strong tool to
identify problems before they explode. If
you can come with a better one - that's
interesting.

So, perhaps one of the central merits of
democracy is its ability to take all these
tiny bits of knowledge and opinions,
spread in the heads of millions of people,
and make out of it some meaningful list
of the important issues for the future
of the country.