Voting is considered to be one of the basic human rights, especially in a democracy. Based on obvious results of exercising that right, one could argue that voters need a license.
Doctors and lawyers need a license to practice medicine or law. Drivers need a license to operate a moving vehicle.
Why not a license for voters?
The higher professions require years of education and training to achieve an acceptable level of knowledge and experience. Would we use the services of a doctor who learned his profession via mail order? Mostly, no.
Most countries require their citizens to learn how to drive before they issue a driver’s license. The knowledge and experience of learning to drive usually makes for better drivers.
A person has the right to learn to become a doctor or lawyer or driver. One could easily argue that citizens who wish to vote for members of public office should also learn how to vote. Some argue that should require knowledge, experience, and a license.
If citizens of a country had to learn what was required of public officials, how to evaluate their experience and abilities, and had to pass an examination to obtain a license to vote for said officials, how would they vote?
The problem is that public officials, once voted into office, usually are held accountable only for laws they break (and sometimes not even that), not for promises they break, hence they perpetuate their species (and time in office).
Education, training, and a license test make for an improved driver of vehicles (as it does for doctors and lawyers). Would a similar process make for an improved voter? By implication, the logic dictates that public officials could become higher caliber servants.
Based on the quality, popularity, capability, and damage done by public officials under the current no license system, a voter license, complete with an education process, is an idea whose time may have come. But who would vote for it?