So you are saying that some people's opinions are worth more than others.
Of course. In democracies the people just vote for more wealth redistribution. Also, we seem more inclined to war (provided no draft) and party loyalty. The masses are fickle and easily fooled, and in the US at least we've learned a horrible lesson that dumbing down speeches and debates is a winning strategy.
I think Jefferson recommended that only college educated men should be allowed to vote, and the US didn't originate with universal sufferage so there is a tradition of, err, selection. With today's education system, I would lean towards a test similar to professional exams given today, e.g. bar, cpa, mcat, etc. Logic wouldn't need to be tested, just basic knowledge. This testing was abused in the past, but I'd like to think it could be done today without such unfair discrimination.
One caveat: the educated are more inclined to ideology at the expense of common sense. They are similarly inclined to being disconnected from reality somewhat. Have you had more nutty professors or down to earth ones?
Another caveat: I tend to agree with the masses atm more than the elite. The elite does not have our interests at heart in the least.
However, I'd again like to think the test wouldn't become too much of "a big logistical operation." It ideally would make voting more of an honor or the right to vote a rite of passage (improving the sense of duty) and would improve voter awareness and understanding. I'd like to weed out the blind masses whom I perceive as the foundation of the current elite and improve those who pass. Employees of the government and of large corporations also tend to support the current elite though so it's not entirely a problem of rule by the lessors.
How do you judge who's more moral?
I'm not sure. Convicts aren't allowed to vote here. A higher age limit could help perhaps. A requirement that a voter must have roots, e.g. has a family in the state, has held a job in the state for x years, or owns land or a house, etc. This is something that ought to be experimented with on a small scale first. In the US the states used to be free to set their own requirements, but I believe that's no longer an option. The actual Constitution would need to be reamended which would be nearly impossible for such a reform.
I'd have to really study this for a decent opinion. Atm, I'm just disillusioned. The ideal is for the best to decide matters, but that might be like the communist ideal: impossible. The present system works at least, so perhaps I should be content with that.
Small and decentralised is better.
would they, despite being well educated, think of themselves only?
That'd be a risk for sure. Actually, it would be expected that they would put their interests above others. Perhaps the high representation of teachers would lead to their voting higher salaries for example. Also, there'd be a risk if the tests were too bothersome, an extremist group might gain far greater representation than would be reflected in the general population.
Also, a segment of the population could attempt to block another segment after taking control of the testing apparatus. Additionally, certain segments aren't going to be as equally represented as others so perceived discrimination will arise. Any perceived discrimination could lead to energy normally absorbed in election competitions being released through violence.