Is the Epistocracy better than Democracy?.

Democracy is the most recognized political system in the world, practically all countries that celebrates an election use this system as a method to elect the government, it is based on the so-called "right to vote", but it has a problem, everyone can vote, from the most prepared to the one who has no idea what are they doing. Due to this a question arises: Do we need a change?. My answer is yes.

Contrary to what many believe, there are alternatives to Democracy, one of them is the Epistocracy, an alternative system posed by the Philosopher Jason Brennan in his book "Against Democracy", this system is based on that you need to have a minimum of knowledge to be able to vote, we live in societies where to perform important work is necessary to be qualified, voting is very important and therefore we must be.

In the Epistocracy you must know basic universal concepts about politic, economy and social issues, then perform an examination in this regard, this with the aim of minimizing the bad decisions that unfortunately most do when it comes to depositing the paper in the box, and, if someone is not allowed to vote because he is unable to pass a test of basic knowledge about politic, economy and social issues, no one should complain, because that person had nothing to do voting, he was probably going to do something stupid, to do something without knowing the possible consequences and without having any objectivity.

Even great thinkers of Ancient Greece criticized and were recognized enemies of Democracy, Socrates, for example, although he did not leave any text, he said that you could not put a lot of people to decide on fundamental issues of which were totally ignorant... And he was absolutely right, in fact, Socrates himself proved his point when those ignorants sentenced him unfairly to death.

Plato on the other hand defends something similar in "The Republic", but in his case he considered that the majority of the people was like "imprisoned prisoners who would never see the light" and therefore it was unthinkable that they were the ones who had the power and the sovereignty, he considered that a government shoul be elected and managed by Philosophers since the Philosophy made them obtain wisdom and virtue.

 The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill

How many blind voters makes their election influenced by stereotypes of the parties, appearance of the candidates or continue voting for the same party over and over again by family tradition? Voting today is something that is not taken seriously, and so on. that a large part of the population would be left without the right to suffrage if a simple psycho-technical test was needed as requeriment, it's the truth, the biggest problem of Democracy is the fact that the vote of an illiterate has the same value than the vote of someone intelligent who knows exactly what he wants, why and how.

In my opinion, it is preferable to let the people who are prepared vote, and not the people who would not be able to pass a basic examination of such important issues, because it is preferable that the best ones should say what is the way that the country needs to follow, because that way is less likely to obtain power a cheap populist who simply speaks "nice", because this is how the "Third-World" countries will stop making the worst decisions to choose populists, dictators and "commanders" that the only thing they manage is to paralize the development of their countries and make them miserable.