Some sort of test of critical thinking and analytical reasoning skills. Doesn't matter how you got them - education, drivers' style manual, born with them, brain implant, whatever. The higher you score, the more votage points you get (within a reasonable spread, say 1-10 or something).

Some people call that IQ. I don't really care what it's called, it's measuring the value of your opinion in terms of how capable you are of forming a good one.

Then the most important political issue in the country is writing the test and correcting it and you want that kind of a choke point to exist because you like systemic failure risks?

I already said anything like this is probably impractical due to the risk of abuse and voter suppression. I'm just spitballing how I'd want to see it done it if it were practical.

If it was practical you could use actual economic success as the proxy, and get a "vote by census" which is what the most successful western countries in the history of the world had when they took off and left every other place on earth in the dust comparatively.

We already tried it and it worked so much better than every other system before that by such a long margi we changed history forever

Then we got marxism corrupting the soul of our countries from within, and the attempted hegellian synthesis to it of extending the franchise to everyone, welfare, social democracy and so on.

Not sure what you're driving at. Actual economic success can include inheriting money or winning the lottery or getting a large settlement or a ****load of other things that don't require brains.

Perfect is the enemy of the good enough

What about psychological profiles? Morals? Motivations?

My gut feeling is that there is insufficient correlation between economic success/wealth and critical thinking ability for one to be a "good enough" proxy for the other.

I'm not looking to pass my own value judgements on the conclusions people reach. I am looking to measure how capable they are of forming a logical train of thought leading to those conclusions, and how they go about differentiating between fact and fiction when establishing their premises.

In my utopia, someone who has a well informed and well thought through opinion on some topic should have that opinion count for more than someone who just believes the first thing they read on twitter or hear from their preacher or whatever. Doesn't matter what that opinion is - what matters is how they reached it, or at the very least how they'd hypothetically be capable of reaching it.

It already does

Oh? How so? One person one vote would sort of imply that it doesn't, no?

The correlation you want is "having money -> making decisions that will help the country prosper".

If having money and keeping it is enough for normies to ask people who are really good because of their self interest that's already more than enough.

Because the short term self interest of the money class is better aligned with overall success of a country than the short term self interest of poor people, and most people can only think short term.

If your self interest is "how to steal" vs "how do I keep and grow what I have" it's not hard to see why the latter group will collectively reach far better decisions even if they are all identical for any other talent.

Some poor people will end up in bad spots , and so be it.

People with influence move votes and you need to be over average in talents to have influence

Well that's not the correlation I'm looking for, and I'm not at all convinced that our definitions of "prosperity" for a country align. I think that we're better off listening to the intelligent than the rich, and although there is obviously going to be significant overlap in those circles, they are far from concentric.

If they are so intelligent, why aren't they rich?

Not everyone who is smart is influential and not everyone who is influential is smart. Again, overlapping circles, not concentric.

If they are so smart why doesn't anyone give a **** about their opinion?

There are lots of reasons. Use your imagination. Also, "rich" is a continuum. Should Bezos' or Musk's vote count for 100,000x more than your average millionnaire? **** no.

Because not everyone who is smart is interested in publishing their opinion? Because being good at manipulating stupid people is not the same thing as being smart? Take your pick.

The model proposed is vote by census which depending on historical time encompassed the top 2-5-10% of income/wealth.

We are talking upper middle class not bezos.

You need the bourgeoisie to call the shots that's the secret recipe of western societies during industrialization.

More porous than the aristocracy, more numerous, still an oligarchy.

Ok, I understand your proposal. It's not the same as my proposal. I prefer my proposal. I've explained why. Not sure what else I can say?

If you don't want to be influential you are self selecting yourself out of politics like people who choose not to have children, good riddance and if you are someone who doesn't think politics are relevant why the hell would I ask you about your political opinion or even worse give it any weight in our decision making?

You can try to manipulate smart people and if you succeed that's even more relevant (they on turn pick the fishes)

So you're concerned with someone's ability to form a logical train of thought but not their ability to empathize? Not looking to pass your own value judgements on people who are only in it for themselves and would use their intelligence to rob others blind?

Do you know your proposal was used in history and the result was absolute, complete stagnation of what would have otherwise been the most successful country of all times?

He wants society to ask the rainmen around us for policy and let them alone decide...