I'm not at all sure who those “near the bottom of the pile” actually are, John D., but it sounds remarkably prejudiced to me.
One of the mates I was referring to earlier, from the UK, rose to the position of Deputy Town Clark in a regional shire. Another from NZ was the manager of a tyre service. Both considered the right to vote to be over rated, to say the least.
Every election, 3 members of my own family ask me what the issues are and who they should vote for.
By comparison, all my Koori mates are not only very politically aware, but very politically active.
Political engagement -or lack thereof, not to mention disaffection- crosses all boundaries, it seems to me.
Forcing people to makes decisions affecting all of us, without any knowledge or interest in the issues, is just crazy.
And the evidence to date certainly doesn't suggest the practice produces a better class of politician, or better political outcomes.

Grim: I think it is a reasonable bet that most of the people who can't pass your "citizenship test" will well and truly be part of the bottom of the pile. It is also a reasonable bet that once governments are allowed to use tests to stop some people voting they will be emboldened to find other ways of filtering out people who have the right to vote now. They only have to look at the US if they want some appalling ideas.

The proportional voting system for the Senate is ludicrous. The voter, without reliable sources of information, is supposed to be able to rank the seventy-odd candidates in order of merit for a job that the voter hardly understands.
A vote above the line is a surrender to machine politics; Steve Fielding was elected after the 280th iteration of the counting process.
I would rather see the Senate merged with the"other place" to produce 40 electorates of ten members, five women and five men; the voter would vote for one man and one women, if he or she wished to; and votes would be rendered by post.