You could come up with some sort of fig leaf like equating money with free speech, and thereby maximize the influence of the wealthy - which will naturally include a greater proportion of the intelligentsia.
And, even if you are selected as one of the lucky voters, there is no guarantee that you will continue to be one in the upcoming years.
This is almost certainly a recipe for totalitarianism. Democracy was hard won, an only a fool would give it up.
It’s interesting to consider what would be a usable heuristic for testing whether someone meets the criteria. What would you use? Do you have to have a degree? If so, can it be any academic degree or does it need to be at a certain level or above (e.g. master’s or above only, BS holders can’t vote)? Will there be public exams? Will they be criterion based (e.g. you must demonstrate mastery of X, Y, and Z concepts to pass), or will they be normed (e.g. those with the top 10% of scores will be allowed to vote)?
Good point. There’s a difference between true wisdom and being smart in some areas. Consider that a significant force behind a lot of woo-woo pseudoscience is coming from well-trained engineers (EE’s, software developers, etc.). These are smart and well-educated people, but people who may not have been taught as much of the healthy scientific skepticism that you might get by e.g. doing a doctorate in physics or something.
Emotional satisfaction.
Choose whichever compromise among the three leads to the overall greatest emotional satisfaction.
The best outcome would be one that leaves the overall greatest emotional satisfaction.
I’m not sure why you’re using “happiness” in quotes if you know what it means well enough to use it as part of your own argument.
Basically, more government intervention vs. less government intervention. We still have that problem now anyways. As far as what the best outcome to that conflict is: The compromise that creates the overall greatest emotional satisfaction.
I’ll speculate on a method just to get people on the right track, because people seem to be overly focused on college results. How about something like a personality assessment given to kids annually throughout school to determine how they think? When they’re of age; They get to vote.
I have no idea.
Some very touchy-feely-type people have excellent people skills, which are important in evaluating a candidate for office.
Why have them vote, then, if you’ve determined ahead of time that only Right-Thinking people get to vote?
Because unless you can define it in concrete terms that everyone can agree on and **measure ** your system is doomed to failure. There’s no possible way you can assess my happiness without relying on subjective and biased measures. What you end up with is some bureaucrat deciding that there’s not enough satisfaction to be had by selling sports cars, so from now on we’ll only allow sedans and pick up trucks to be made.
Maybe, maybe not. Professors and scientists, for instance, aren’t known for being wealthy.
I forsee the sort of infighting - literal infighting, with guns - that occurs in systems where all power in concentrated at the top. As you note, the risk of losing your spot at the trough is too great to not fight to keep your faction on top.
Heaping more and and more privileges upon the voting class, for one. Tax immunity, security details, stipends, immunity from criminal prosecution…basically the sort of thing the pigs did in Animal Farm.
Right away, you’re starting with a big deficit there: people are generally dissatisfied with a political system that disenfranchises them and is only accountable to an aristocracy.
Easy way to determine which intellectuals get to run things: those who agree with me get into government. Those who don’t agree with me get shut out. Simple. 
Democracy works best when everybody has a voice. So much so that I would advocate we go to an Australian system, with mandatory voting. With the added catch that “None of the above are acceptable” must be on the ballot as a choice as well.
First of all the question is politically loaded, since the right have succeeded in demonizing the term “intellectual” as they have the term “liberal”, so that “intellectual” now, as desired, conjures up images among the masses of leftist academic extremists with revolutionary Marxist tendencies, or something close to that.
Perhaps we should ask instead whether only reasonably intelligent and reasonably informed people should be able to vote, putting aside the explosive question of how that could be enforced. I don’t think there need be a lot of ambiguity about what we mean by “reasonably intelligent” – there are objective measures. And by “reasonably informed”, I mean the population exclusive of those who can name all the Kardashian sisters but cannot name one Supreme Court justice, don’t know who their representatives or senators are, believe in Creationism but not in climate change, and who wonder where the sun goes at night.
Or who march in protests against “Obamacare”, and when asked to name the specific reasons they oppose it, think for a long time and finally declare something like “because it’s socialism!” and walk away in a confused huff. So what you have there is worse than voters who are uninformed – you have voters who are calculatedly misinformed.
Now imagine for a moment the kind of government that could be had if only reasonably intelligent people who actually had some knowledge about the world around them were able to vote. What a delightful thought, if such a thing were possible!
But since that ideal probably can’t realistically be achieved, then maybe the next best thing would be to try to ensure a slightly more informed – and slightly less misinformed and FUD-infested – general public. Like for God’s sake put reasonable limits on lobbying and political propagandizing by self-serving moneyed interests, which is why this is such a consistent hot button in these kinds of discussions. And how about funding a viable non-commercial public broadcasting system. Few may realize that the US has – by far – the worst-funded public broadcasting system in the entire industrialized world, so destitute that it has to beg for private support – and of course folks like David Koch are more than happy to step up, so that the Kochs have even insinuated themselves into what little there is of ostensibly independent public broadcasting.
So, who gets to decide on what is the correct personality?
No one should. That’s too subjective. But how about a set of questions on relevant general political knowledge that every voter would have to get at least some pathetic score like 50% on? The questions would be randomized for each voter so that you couldn’t just memorize a few answers, and so that they couldn’t be targeted in some particular way. And how about if they were updated to reflect major issues of each election?
How about if voters flocking to the polls to vote for the pro-Obamacare or anti-Obamacare candidate had to demonstrate that they knew at least three facts about Obamacare? What a concept! 
Which facts are important?
I’m suddenly envisioning a scenario where black people attempting to vote are asked how many words are in the PPACA and white people are asked which president was in office when Obamacare was passed.
What do you expect that to accomplish? What difference will it make to who is elected, and who will benefit from it? And what data do you have that informs this plan?
Not if it was handled as I described…
I don’t believe that this ideal could actually work in practice, which is why I concluded my post as I did, focusing on just trying to promote a more informed (and less misinformed) public.
But, just exploring it in theory, what it would accomplish if it could be done would be to ensure that people voting on issues actually had some concept of what the issues were! Imagine that! There really are such things as “facts”, and they don’t always get represented in the polemics of political propagandizing. The winners would be the voters with reality-based expectations and the general public, and the losers would be the failed propagandists and spinners of self-serving deceptions.
Stay in school, kids. Remember, smartness guarantees citizenship.
Good intentions don’t prevent biased questions. Dominant cultures are especially blind to it.