This is why democracy is flawed and should be replaced by a nationwide meritocracy.

The poor, uneducated and young do have interests, but can they defend them? Hardly any politician defends their rights. They're the most easily manipulated part of the electorate, and they are the biggest voting block, probably 70% of the country.

Now I'm not saying the masses shouldn't be represented. I'm proposing a 2nd "election" for the 70%, once every 4 years. The election would be a simple poll measuring how good or bad they've been, there will be no campaigns, just a simple poll. If the majority disliked the govt, they will be unable to run for a 2nd time.

This will lead to a country that's run by better people, who also have an interest in keeping all of the country happy.

It wouldn't look that much different than our current system really.

So basically: the successful, wise and intelligent make the judgment to choose the leaders, the masses hold them accountable.

Nope. Dumb and bad.

Edit: Now that I have more time, let me elaborate.

If you ban the vast majority of people from voting then they lose their agency and what you end but with is a situation where the people who likely have the most at stake in elections suddenly don't have a voice.

Beyond that, there isn't much of a correlation between the criteria you bring up, and being an informed voter. Income restrictions will largely just give white men a huge demographic advantage. Age and IQ hold no bearing on someone's ability to make an informed decision on who to vote for. I've met brilliant people who have no mind for economics or foreign policy.

U smart, Turkish.

I'd rather a voting education system be brought in. You must attend a couple/few hour long classes or something before the right to vote is given. If you don't attend, you must show at least a basic understanding of the party you're intending on voting for as well as their policies. It sounds a little demanding but it will also filter a lot of people out who simply don't care or are jumping on a bandwagon. Voting is compulsory where I'm from. My views may differ from others who live in a country with a choice to vote.

This will lead to a country that's run by better people, who also have an interest in keeping all of the country happy.
It wouldn't look that much different than our current system really.
So basically: the successful, wise and intelligent make the judgment to choose the leaders, the masses hold them accountable.


Erm... No. What you described is just how things are anyway: Society has always been run by the successful, those who hold capital and influence, and who are able to sway the public opinion to their whims. This is not a meritocracy, and has nothing to do with meritocracy.

What you describe is what Plato has articulated as oligarchy: A society reliant on inequality, where the rich make the right decisions not out of virtue but out of self-interest that appears to the majority as superiority. Meritocracy does not distinguish based on income.

Age limit increase is a good idea, coming from a 21 year old 18 is too young.

25 should be the limit as that is when your brain is finished developing.

Income based is a bad idea and would create bias. Intelligence is a good idea, fully developed people should make the decision. If you're going to add that age limit I also think the voting age should be cut off at 75+ also.

I agree, but the US isn't a democracy. It's a Democratic republic, IE they get opinions of the public but that isn't the final say, they make the final say.

I see this idea backfiring. It just make a lot of people happy, for not voting. It's a good excuse. "I'm dumb. I don't need to vote."

If voting had a few more options. Like say: I don't like any of the picked candidates. I want new people picked (please don't suggest the other 25, that never reach this point). Everything redone. Trump and Hillary could of been removed. Maybe the 50% that didn't vote. Would have. But, it doesn't work like that.

Also, more people, would be happy, to not vote. "I'm stupid, so I don't have to vote.". Would be the main excuse.

Your alegiance is to a plastic box made in China.  It may be wise to ban you from voting and restrict democracy to low IQs and incomes.

Maybe you should read my posts further down. It's almost the same but totally different. The leaders in my proposed system are totally accountable by the people. Only difference is, the choosing of those leaders is restricted.

Also I've said nationwide meritocracy, read again. Unless you fail to understand the meaning of meritocracy, you should know well what it means applied on a national level.

If you actually think about it, it'll be the best form of government.