I have a long answer to this which I can dredge up and copy paste. Here's the short version.

1/3 random questions from the immigration test as it exists today (so that no one can disenfranchise others by changing the test).

2/3 questions chosen by each candidate on the ballot. Questions must have an objectively correct answer and must be pertinent to the powers of the office itself.

The long version of this answer just adds defining objective, correct, and pertinent in a legally unambiguous way and sketches out scenarios like trick questions to show that the only reliable way to gain favor in this system is to actually be knowledgeable.

Oh gosh. Why do candidates have any business filtering voters?

Why do people who don't even know what the candidates said have any business voting?

There is already plenty enough built-in momentum to not properly educate the public - "if we fuck up they don't get to vote" is some next level shit.

At face value, that means 20% of the people (in a "democracy") will be unable to vote.

Basically you are saying that some people will not have the ability to decide who will govern them.

I just think it would be gamed somehow, like the games played with gerrymandering.

I assume that it works more like a filter - does the voter know the promises and policies of each candidate in his region? Or is the voter voting blindly?

There was an idea going around that instead of voting for candidate, you would answer a questionnaire about policies, and would be matched with best fit candidate.

The questions itself would be compiled from candidates' policies, and candidate would assign the weights to each of the answers.