Because I, personally, hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among t

Because I, personally, hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a dictator (or epistocracy) protects these unalienable rights better than 50%+1 of the population does, your premises argue in favor of that dictator/epistocracy/non-democratic government. Voting rights are neither life, liberty nor pursuit of happiness. Voting rights are something else: the right to have a nonzero probability of directly influencing the use of (legal) violence against others. It's easily possible for a person to have your three inalienable rights without this.