I would like to clarify my preference for some type of meritocratic aristocracy over democracy.

If number of votes is all that matters, and Gaussian distribution of the population applies, the end-result of universal suffrage will create the rule of the most evil kind of manipulators, who are good at exploiting weaknesses of the majority for their ends. A system of government where one would be required to display significant ability and virtue in order to have a say in anything would yield much better results. For instance, reserving the right to vote for the top 10% of population in IQ, and then selecting within this group those who pass a basic test which proves they are informed enough to know what they are doing, and requiring them to either pay a net positive in taxes, or to have served in the armed forces, let’s just say I would so like to see an election campaign targetting this kind of voters. Essentially, what I would do is require that you can’t make decisions regarding public matters if you’re stupid, uninformed and you’re not a stakeholder. If you pay more taxes than you reap benefits, then you’re the group that’s actually influenced by taxation, and that’s what government is – deciding who is taxed, and who is ordered to go into a war and die. If you have a vested interest in taxing others because that’s where you get your money from, you’re simply not to be trusted with decisions in the matter. You can’t allow the poor people to vote, because they’ll vote to take the rich people’s money and distribute it among themselves, which is easier than working for it. You also can’t allow the unvirtuous people to vote, which is why criminals should be stripped of voting rights, and you can’t allow the stupid people to vote, because they don’t know enough to make good and informed decisions, and they cast their vote based on some stupid bullshit such as “I’ll vote for her because she’s a woman” or “I’ll vote for this guy because he’s black and I’ll virtue-signal that I’m not racist”. That’s not how you can elect good government. You need to understand the policy, the consequences, and the character of the person. Most people are just too stupid for it, and those who can do it properly are rendered statistically insignificant by the sheer body count of fools that show up at the ballot box. So, basically, if someone had served in the armed forces, he knows it’s his ass on the line of fire and will not easily vote for the populist warmongers. Also, if someone earns his own income, he will not easily vote for those who would like nothing better than to squander his money.

Some say that things went downhill for the Western civilization when women got the right to vote, because they consistently voted for the leftist policies. I partially agree, but I think it’s not the women, it’s the non-stakeholders that are the problem. You can be sure that a woman whose assets are on the line won’t vote for tax increases that finance social activism. Also, you can be sure that a woman whose son is in the military won’t vote for warmongers. So basically the problem appeared where you no longer had to own property or pass a test to be able to vote, which returns us to my original criteria – people who are stupid, uninformed and who don’t have a horse in the race should not have a say. Yes, this would divide humans into a ruled class and a ruling class, and that’s good, as long as you can join the ruling class at any moment by proving you’re either competent enough to have a say, or that you’re willing to put your life in the line of fire, by joining the military. If you’re ready to die for the common good, you can vote to elect the government, as far as I’m concerned.