Limiting voting to certain parts of the population will not work and is a dangerous and ridiculous suggestion at the same time. It did not work in history, the ancient Greeks were just as likely to elect dictators as we see now. And likely all of the current MPs and ministers would pass Surfer's 'STEM degree and work experience' test and there are still absolute fuckwits among them without a clue about the EU. Democracy has to mean everyone is included.
However, a meaningful vote is dependent on informed opinions, and these come from extended, critical debate. Facts need to be available, and people have to be encouraged to discuss them. Current education trends do not help - ticking boxes in multiple choice exams isn't the same as forming and defending an opinion. Neither does the decline in pub culture, removing a point of debate. Or the extremely stressful work environment, where efficiency is everything and nobody has time to stop and think. News are available and updated around the clock - before you have time to digest them, they have changed again.
There is probably a case for re-thinking democracy - the democracy we know was established in an age of 'mass organisation' - with the industrialisation, people became increasingly more part of a mass - millions worked in very similar jobs, lived in very similar conditions, and spend their rare free time in similar ways. It must have been easy to feel associated with hose around you, find common goals and aims and agree on a way forward that would benefit everyone.
These days, we are back to a much more fracturated society, where everyone has to make their own way. Jobs are temporary and careers change. The 'gig economy' is just a new example of hand-to-mouth employment. The question is, are the democratic organisations that were established during previous times still the right tool to deliver democracy? Or so we need to invent something new, something that better represents the conflicting interests of a fragmented society?
