Like I said in the Heinlein thread, the reason suffrage is universal is not because we think that all voters are wise or just or even especially good people. Of course they aren't.
The reason suffrage is universal is so that the government can't step on anybody. It can't step on black people anymore, because they'll vote it out of office. It can't step on women anymore, because they'll vote it out of office. 18-year-olds got the vote as a direct result of the government stepping on 18-year-olds (with the draft in the Vietnam War). Making voting conditional just gives the government a new group of people to step on: those people who didn't care enough about voting to do the work, and as a result of that entirely benign decision are doomed to be horribly mistreated by a government that has no empathy for them whatsoever.
As such, and to drag this back on topic, the best way I can think of to reduce classism is to get more poor people to vote. Do that, and a lot of problems that nobody realized were caused by lazy or malicious government will seem to magically disappear.
On that note, if we were actually worried about voter fraud then we should issue FREE id cards to anybody that needs them. They walk in, fill out whatever info is needed, snap a photo, bam you get a card in the mail or there. But in reality, i've never seen a single statistic that showed voter fraud to ever be a problem. Lack of voter participation is though.
I mean, I think it shows a very classist society when most poor people are just simply priced out of the voting system through hidden rules. You tell middle class people "show your driver's licence", or they laugh at "How can a person not afford a photo ID, what BS!" and so on. Yet you see 50% or more rate drops in poor areas when they introduce stricter voting laws. It's a clear attack on the rights of the poor.
![]()
How do you know getting more poor people to vote will improve things? They might elect idiots who will just ruin the country (like they did in Greece). If you look at the worse dictators of the 20th century, most of them had the support of poor workers and/or farmers.
Grasroots movements, desire to combat them on both sides and simply not being a dick. Revolutions don't bring anything good and you can't (and shouldn't even try to) fight the way people think with law.
"Take your (...) hippy dream world, I'll take reality and earning my happiness with my own efforts" - BarkeyGiving the poor political power and civil rights is meant to improve their life and in fact the whole point is to eliminate the poor so that the political system cannot use them for demagoguery. I'm sure you're referencing populist movements or mob rule when you're talking about riling up the poor masses for political change.
However, if you were instead talking about how to decrease the number of poor and instead increase the number of middle class, what I am in effect saying, is that I am trying to increase the level of education of the population and reduce the standard deviation of the education opportunities of everyone. That combats mob rule and demagoguery.
If everyone were in the range known as "middle" class, you'd have far less classism (I don't think you can fully eliminate it but if the actual physical differences are small, it doesn't translate to much effect in the physical world. For instance, a mid-range civil engineer can look down upon a linesman but the pay between the two of them is fairly similar so does it actually mean anything?)

See, I see one huge problem with trying to reduce classism (and no, I'm not just talking about classism based on wealth) by replacing one set of class markers with another one. It doesn't get rid of the classism at all — it just moves it around.