[quote=@Awson]
A controlled amount of drugs without side effects and a world on easy mode would work wonders.
[/quote]

[url=http://compulsiongames.com/en/10/we-happy-few]We Happy Few[/url] comes to mind immediately. The whole synopsis is that all you have to do is take a pill and then everyone is happy, completely oblivious to anything negative that could be happening in the outside world. By doing that, does that really solve any problems? It turns into a large group of people who willingly turn a blind eye from what's going on outside of their comfort zones just so that they don't have to feel bad for once. It's a truly fascinating concept and, as far as I know, has yet to be tested to see if that really could apply successfully. However, I feel like taking uppers just to make sure I find a kind of drug-induced happiness kind of defeats the point in making something of myself, and striving to do better.

But back to the original topic: intelligence itself, in this political setting, would be difficult to define, due to there being "book smarts" and there being "street smarts". So one would be able to argue that if you aren't able to compute advanced algebraic equations or exhibit some kind of learned traits from formal education, then you aren't capable of having your vote considered at full 100% capacity. How is this fair to those individuals who have exhibited a greater understanding of common sense - people who are able to witness, evaluate, and make educated decisions on everyday life events, but who are lacking in their formal education?

Though to some extent I would agree that only intellectuals should have a say in large-scale decisions, this will only work in a setting where the general public is willing to realize that some of them are not worthy of being fully considered, and I doubt that would go over very well.