You aren't the only one. It's called Geniocracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geniocracy
Different name, same crap ... Just another brand of dictatorship. Being smart has never prevented anymore from being an idiot or a sack of shit.
For some reason, the advocates of geniocracy think "intelligence" also entails the absence of flaws, a view I consider a spectacular lapse in lucidity. If anything, intelligence acts like a flaw amplifier.
This. So much this.
See italicized below:
This method of selectivity is deliberate so as to address what the concept considers to be flaws in the current systems of democracy. The primary object of criticism is the inability of majoritarian consensus to provide a reasonable platform for intelligent decision making for the purpose of solving problems permanently. Geniocracy's criticism of this system is that the institutions of democracy become more concerned with appealing to popular consensus through emotive issues than they are in making long-term critical decisions, especially those that may involve issues not immediately relevant to the electorate. It asserts that political mandate is something far too important to simply leave to popularity, and asserts that the critical decision making required for government, especially in a world of globalization, cannot be based on criteria of emotive or popular decision making.
As a response to its controversial attitudes about selectivity one of the more general responses is to point out that universal suffrage, the current system, already discriminates to some degree and varyingly in different countries, in who is allowed to vote. Primarily, this discrimination is against minors, incarcerated felons, and the mentally incapacitated. This is on the basis that their ability to contribute to the decision making process is either flawed or invalid for the purpose of the society.
The current difficulty in the ideas of geniocracy is that the means of assessing intelligence are ill-defined. One idea offered by Raël in Geniocracy is to have specialists such as psychologists, neurologists, ethnologists, etc., perfect or choose among existing ones, a series of tests that would define each person's level of intelligence. They should be designed to measure intellectual potential rather than accumulation of knowledge.
Other components deemed necessary for a more rounded understanding of intelligence include concepts like emotional intelligence. As such, geniocracy's validity cannot really be assessed until better and more objective methods of intelligence assessment are made available.
The matter of confronting moral problems that may arise is not addressed in the book Geniocracy; many leaders may be deeply intelligent and charismatic (having both high emotional/social intelligence and IQ) according to current means of measuring such factors, but no current scientific tests are a reliable enough measure for one's ability to make humanitarian choices (although online tests such as those used by retail chains to select job applicants may be relevant).
The end result of this would be a dictatorship under a super-AI programmed to balance "safety" and "happiness" for humanity. Note that "freedom" is not considered important, since humans would be considered too stupid to make any important decisions for themselves.
For irony's sake, call the AI Y.A.H.W.E.H.
Besides, why are we assuming that we would be part of the voting class under a Geniocracy? It might be that none of us
(and by "us", I mean the people in this thread) would meet the standards of this hypothetical intellectual elite. Would you still support a Geniocracy even if they told you
were too dumb (in more polite terms, surely) to make the important decisions?