> Suppose everything you say is true, and every single supporter of epistocracy is racist. It does not follow that epistocracy is bad. Consider the possibility

> Suppose everything you say is true, and every single supporter of epistocracy is racist. It does not follow that epistocracy is bad. Consider the possibility that epistocracy is racist but it also produces better governance - e.g., perhaps the racial groups being discriminated against vote for bad governance. Fundamentally, this is possible. We are ageist when it comes to voting, for example, because we restrict votes from the very young on the basis that they are much less likely to vote sensibly. A five year old is not expected to be able to weight the complexities of immigration policies or tax issues. But I would argue we start from the idea that anyone is equally capable of voting, then use evidence to restrict people. So, it might be beneficial to stop everyone born on an odd year from voting, or people whose great-grandparents lived in a different country, or who have red hair, or are under 5"4', but without any evidence that this is the case and with history suggesting that restricting voting often results in revolts then why would we start in that situation? > The main argument against this is that voting rights are a way to express respect, membership and status to humans. No, the main argument is that voting rights result in representation. It's not for a feel-good factor, but for the same reason having wolves and sheep vote on dinner when only the wolves can vote might not result in an outcome that really represents the will of the population.