In Against Democracy, Brennan justifies epistocracy raised by Estlund. He gives many inspiring thoughts, and that seems to be a solution for democracy today.
I do agree with him that most voters are ignorant about politics. There is an interesting fact that leaders of democracies are generally better-looking than leaders of dictatorships. When you compare Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron with Jinping Xi, and Kim Jong Un, you will find a big difference in their appearances. Most voters make the decision based on their instincts instead of their judgment. Is Trudeau the most suitable person as Prime Minister of Canada? I cannot tell that, and it doesn’t matter. The public knows that he is reliable because he is the former prime minister's son, and his appearance wins him a lot of votes from women.
The Ethics of Voting is a practical guide for voters. If voters must vote, then the country will be led by the majority of voters who are ignorant about politics. Another characteristic of the majority is that they are more likely to be incited. They would even change their idea based on an unrealistic promise from the candidate. Educated people should be responsible for leading the country, while others should stay home on voting day. It seems unfair for most people because they are given voting rights. However, they are not voting for a better future, which is also a part of their self-interest.
The epistocracy should work under The Ethics of Voting. Nobody is banned from voting, but the public should encourage well-educated voters to participate and discourage others.