The outstanding Jason Brennan on the Princeton University Press blog:

Now, I freely admit that most bad voters do not recognize they are
bad voters. If so, one might object, how can they have a duty not to
vote? They do not know they are bad voters, so how can they have a duty to abstain?

I don’t find this objection persuasive. Here’s an analogy. Suppose
Bob beats his children for any minor infractions. He refuses to educate
them, holding that education corrupts the soul. He verbally abuses them
because he thinks this builds character. Bob does all of this because he
thinks it’s best for his children, even though it’s clearly not. Now,
suppose Bob isn’t crazy. Rather, he’s just in the grip of some false,
bad beliefs about child rearing. In this case, most of us would hold Bob
responsible for his actions. Sure, he thinks he’s doing the right
thing, but he should know better. He’s a bad parent and should act

I have often compared bad voters to drunk drivers–they are like
people steering the state while intoxicated. Suppose I am driving drunk
and a child is crossing at a crosswalk.  Because I am so drunk, I am
unable to see the child, and so I am unable to recognize that I have a
duty to stop.  Still, even though I don’t know that the child is there, I
have a duty to stop. Though I am unable to know I have a duty to stop, I
am not relieved of that duty, because I had a responsibility to make
sure I only drove the car while competent to do so. Similar remarks
apply to voters. Many of them are too biased and irrational to make wise
choices. But it’s their fault that they’re like that in the first
place. So, they aren’t excused when the vote badly.

My poverty book will make an analogous argument in the first chapter.