system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Should a person who has a PhD in Political Science or Economics have an equal vote to someone who has barely graduated high-school?

I see a lot of positives in democracy, but a thing I don't understand is that how can everyone have an equal say in deciding the future of the country.

I have recently started reading books on topics like Economics, History, Politics, Geopolitics, etc and realised that how much I don't know, how much ignorant I am and how fallible and prone to emotions my thinking is. The way I view the world has radically changed and I have no strong opinions on anything related to politics.

Furthermore, I also think that I'm not eligible to vote despite being of age since I don't have enough knowledge to make the right decision. 

So my question is, how can my vote be equal to someone who has devoted tons of years studying government itself, its policies, its history, its flaws, etc?
gpt
You seem to be hinting at some kind of epistocracy. For more arguments in favor of epistocracy, you can check out Jason Brennan's *Against Democracy*. His case has been challenged on a lot of different grounds, though. For instance by Paul Gunn, who writes in his "Against Epistocracy" the following:

>Brennan fails to explain why we should think that these putative experts  are sufficiently knowledgeable to avoid making errors as damaging as those made by voters. Given the strong link between political knowledge and ideological dogmatism, as well as the tendency of social scientists to disagree with one another, the case for epistocracy is deeply implausible, at best. Moreover, given that there are important  non-instrumental justifications of democracy—justifications of which  Brennan appears to be radically ignorant—the epistocratic alternative would be unnecessary even if it were viable.