Elite rule


A-citizens will be given absolute power to rule the country, they will divide themselves into groups that specializes in different tasks

Citizen class: max number of individuals (specialization)

A0: 35 (high court)
A1: 15 (executive council)
A2: 15 (financial board)
A3: 15 (legislature)
A4: 13 (science board)
A5: 11 (board of education)
A6: 9 (confidential research board)
A7: 7 (board of international affairs)
A8: 5 (board of arts & recreation)
A9: 3
A10 to A130: 1

Succession system
Each senator will select successors (first, second,,,tenth), in the case they die or cannot vote for some other reason. If the successor already sits in the senate he will have to select a replacement once it's his time to take-over.

High court
Will review appeals made by members of lower courts and decide which of them to look into further for examination.

Executive council
These people will lead our war effort in addition to governing the police force during peace-time.

Financial board
Will control government spending in addition to the central bank.

This group is responsible for deciding on which laws that should exist officially, this will not actually be the laws that are implemented in practice. Will also manage non-binding elections.

Science board
General science board (mathematics, physics, genetic engineering, medicine, etc).

Board of education
The goal is to educate the public including via media.

Confidential research board
Conducts secret research and operations as a form of social control.

Board of arts & recreation
Focus on questions regarding aesthetics and recreational activities.

All these boards can still be overrules by the entire senate (all A-citizens) via simple majority (this is unlikely to happen often), if the votes end in a draw the decision will follow the decision made by the A0 citizens (otherwise A1 and so on).


About checks and balances to power
The power of an entity can be limited by hard limit or by deterrence.

For a hard limit to work when it comes to government decisions the time it takes for other individuals to intervene cannot be too long, only a few minutes in the case or nuclear war.

deterrences can often be evaded, there are many ways to cheat i elections and in wars you may be able to limit the damage that can be delivered in return if you decide to push the nuclear button.

If someone does a crime it will often be too late once the police show up and many people are willing to break the law to achieve a political goal. Brenton Tarrant killed 51 muslims knowing he would go to jail for it, breivik killed 77 individuals and didn't even expect to survive.

Hard limits to the power of certain leaders only changes the power distribution, it doesn't limit the total power of the government.

Entity A: makes the correct decision 70% of the time.

Entity B: makes the correct decision 60% of the time.

If entity B rules the country but are accountable to Entity A you want entity A to intervene as much as possible, of course it would be even better if Entity A directly rules the country. The opposite true holds true if Entity A governs, in that case it's better if entity B never intervenes.

Unfortunately the ones with the ultimate power will be time-limited and thus they will end up having to rely on other people making good decisions for them. Thus even if the highest court always make the correct decision we might still end up with a lot of bad results due to the highest court not having time to review all decisions made by lower courts.

Separations of power allows for more specialization but it also adds more points of failure, this will only be stable if all branches of government are accountable to the same entity with ultimate power, this specialization can also be achieved by relying on paries outside the official government.


The enforcement problem
The true elite will never actually have unlimited power since they will be limited by what actually can be done in the real world, they cannot break the fundamental laws of physics or mathematics.

They will also be forced to take implement sub-optimal policies to please the masses. They will depend on people with military following their orders, if they stop doing that the whole thing may collapse.

Thus with pure single board elite rule the theoretical power distribution will be very different from the actual power distribution.


The ideal number of senators
More senators sharing the highest power makes it more difficult to maintain quality among individuals who rule while too few makes the decision making unreliable (the rulers/ruler cannot be trusted blindly then).

For 15 individuals we get

For 35 senators we get

For 99 senators we get

for 349 senators we get

for 999 senators we get

x = probability of the senator to make a particular decision.
y = probability of the senate making the same decision.

All senators will carry secure phone with them when they are not working, the secure phones will allow them to quickly make a decision in the case of an emergency such as nuclear war scenario. A senator will work at least 14 hours per day, each senator will have a personal staff (successors and B0 citizens) that helps him with research.


Citizens Classes
Humans will be divided into the following classes

An: senator of class n
B0: first successor to a senator, will attend meetings with other senators.
B1: second successor to a senator.
B2: third successor to a senator.
B3: forth successor to a senator.
B4: fifth successor to a senator
B5: sixth successor to a senator
B6: successor seven to a senator.
B7: successor eight to a senator.
B8: successor nine to a senator.
B9: successor ten to a senator.
B10: official advisor to at least one senator.
B11: members of parliament.
B12: approved for jury duty.
C0: full citizenship.
C1: permanent residence.
C2: temporary residence.
D0: free slave, has to pay an additional amount of tax each month to the state.
D1: slave/child you have to treat well (owned by C2 or higher).
D2: slave you are not allowed to injure (minor punishments allowed).
D3: slave not allowed to be killed or very seriously injured (loss of limb, brain-damage, etc).
D4: slave you are not allowed to kill or give serious brain-damage.
D5: slave with no rights.
Em: less/no rights, class m
Fq: military target of value {F0 value}*10^(q/10)


The judicial system
You become a B12-citizen by passing a test where you have to show you understand our laws. Once you are a B12-citizen you can also legally become successor to senator, member of parliament or official advisor to senator(s). Once you are a B-citizen you can randomly be selected for jury-duty.

A case will first be tried by 7 to 15 B-citizens who are randomly selected for the task, most trials will come to an end here, especially when the verdict is without dissent. Once B-citizens have been selected for an individual the same individuals will judge in any new trial where the individual is the defendant.

The defendant/prosecutor can ask jury member(s) to appeal the verdict, if they do the A0 citizens will look into it and decide if they are going to take up the case in the high court. The high court can decide to hold a national trial themselves or to order other people to do a new trial.

A verdict in the high court can be appealed to a full senate trial but these trials will have to be rare since senators will be busy working with other things. In order to participate in a full senate trial the senators would have to let their successor take over ordinary senate tasks, the executive concil (A1) may have to instead send their successors (B0) to the trial while they govern the country.


Women should be D1 slaves
A single government would not be able to properly decide who should be able to control millions of women, it would require too much in terms of brainpower. Fathers would not be able to do a proper job selecting either.

But if we only reduce some females to D1 or lower we can look at what males tgat managed to reproduce via free females and distribute the D1 to D3 females to them. Thus you would get both female sexual selection and selection via government power.


Why do dictatorships have a bad track record?
Sure we have some older kings we may look up to but most dictatorships today are countries we do not actually want to live in, why is that?

First we need to realize that all current democracies function like elite rule between periodic election, you simply rely on the individuals you voting for having a new somewhat fair election (fair enough for you to vote them out).

Thus they issue is the selection mechanism, the most ruthless taking power and using the power they optained to opress everyone else, this is fun for the few that made it in the elite that get power but maybe not so fun for everyone else.

Whether or not you yourself is a member of the elite that gets to vote is actually less important, what matters are the actual decisions, it can end badly for you even if you start out as a member of the elite and you may benefit from it even if you start out powerless.

Many countries had very functional undemocratic systems of governance in the past, initially only 6% where allowed to vote in the US.


Which areas should the ruling elite focus on
The ruling elite needs to focus their brainpower on the most important areas, less important aspects can be left to the private sector to resolve.

Education and media

We need to make sure the public get correct information about important topics and that harmful views to not spread, thus we do need the government controlling mainstream media. We also need to educate the young and make sure they are raised into believing our correct beliefs, we may want to ban or severely restrict homeschooling.


Laws and constitutional rights themselves do not matter too much, you can have one official set of laws and another that is actually enforced in practice. Thus we can have a democratically elected parliament voting for laws and we can later look at them "judicial review" and discard the problematic ones or just judge as if no such law were approved by parliament.

The judicial power
It will look even worse if courts rule one way and it's ignored by the ones in control of the executive bransh (if separate). An executive branch directly controlled by the government may not actually be needed, in medieval iceland laws where enforced in a decentralized manner and no central control over an executive branch was needed.


No need for government involvement, millions of people dying due to privatizations may be a good thing long term. The government shouldn't waste money keeping useless sick people alive, especially when it comes to old sick people.

We do need to focus more on researching genetic engineering of humans and similar areas. Find ways to conolize at least one other planet besides earth.

The military
We do need a strong military so we will be able to take over the world, when we win we will try the losers for war crimes while completely ignoring all the conventions we had to break to win the war in an efficient manner.
I wanna be a dictator sending people to concentration camps.

I wish i had more power, it's really lame not being able to punish people i dont like.


Why democracy isn't a good idea
There is no shortage of issues trying to make democrazy work
1. the people who got election can always rig the next election.
2. voting correctly is too expensive in terms of research.
3. arrows impossibility theorem
4. voters lack the mental abilities required to make good decisions.
5. it will depend on having a good media infrastructure feeding information to people.

One compromise solution for 3 is https://star.vote/

The issue with 5 is that it allows for other nations to manipulate elections, russia did that in the US to get Trump elected over Hillary Clinton.

All democracies are technically governed according to elite rule between elections (an elite having all the power) and there isn't any legal way for the population to replace the rulers before the next election, when it's finally time for the next election it may already be too late. Current democracies are maintained by an irrational religious faith in democracy among the one that got voted into office but that is not stable, it's easy for paranoia to spread where people are afraid that the other party they dont like are going to grab power and end democracy.


democracy does not give you "consent of the governed" you only need to win the election and this does not even require majority support.

If you dont like the government often there isn't much you can do since you are only one of maybe 10 million citizens, your individual vote is highly unlikely to change the outcome of the election.

What matters is that the rulers make good decisions governing the country.

No current country have voting right tied to paying tax so we do not know how it would work actually work but from what i know it worked just fine in the past. The reason why all these systems changed into democracies is because people (including the elite) wanted democracy but it's not clear that it was a good thing in terms of improving the governance of countries.

The switch to democracy was actually a disaster in sweden, our country got ruined by socialist policies and it also ruined our culture and we still have not recovered from that.

When you are giving the right to vote just by surviving to 18 it doesn't really feel like something of value, i didn't really earn it.


How we can end the US democracy
Actually this is already going on with republican purging voter rolls (over 20 million voters so far). The republicans also need to work on the voter machines to make sure they win the 2020 election by landslide.

Constitutional convention
This requires the approval of 38 of 50 (of the state delegates), there are no formal restrictions here but there are still limitations in the sense that you need to make sure this actually get implemented or else it's just some text on a paper.

But if you cannot get to 38 you still need 13 to prevent a convention against you.

Impeachment majority

You need at least 67 senators and 218 members of the house of reprasentatives, this will allow you to impeach any public offical including the president and thus you can gain full control of all 3 branches of government.

Court packing majority
You need majority in the house and senate in addition to the presidency. This will allow you to pass a law packing the supreme court with your lackies and you can also pack lower courts or just rule over them by making the supreme court far more active.

Anti impeachment majority
You need to have the presidency and 34 senators, the president will abuse his powers and the senators will refuse to impeach him despite the fact that he ignored the supreme court and also do not faithfully execute the laws This is the most dirty option but it may work.


People view dysfunctional governments are the norm
A consequence of democracy is that we have normalized a condition where we elect politicians to make very bad decisions and their fialure to actually advance humanity and solve global environmental issues such as anthropocentric global warming.

People were hoping Donald Trump would resolve things but as expected he turned out to be a rather weak and incompetent leader mostly focused on getting re-elected, he is a coward unwilling to pull the trigger when it's justified.

Imagine if we actually had a competent government
  1. having a functional educational system
  2. being able to fuck 13 year old girls breaking the law.
  3. expanding our borders
  4. colonizing other planets
  5. high quality media funded by the government.
  6. getting proper help when you have mental issues instead of quack psychiatrists.
  7. taxes would be far lower (maybe 25% in total).
  8. having a functional judicial system where you dont need to wait years for the final verdict.
  9. birthrate above the replacement level.


About mob rule and vigilante 'justice'
In addition to having to worry about mob rule via the government you may also have issues with people taking the law in their own hands, this is why most people shouldn't be allowed to own weapons. When people commit political violence it tend to be for very irrational reasons since more intelligent individuals refrain from doing these things, we do not want the worst to gain political power due to them being willing to commit acts of terrorism.

If people are allowed to vote their are strategies that can be deployed to limit the damage done
  1. restricting who is allowed to vote.
  2. having an undemocratic media structure
  3. long terms (such as 30 ears or life-long)
  4. not allowing people to run for re-election.
  5. allow rich people to buy politicians.
One strategy if to have elections but construct the system in a way such that the real power is in a body or bodies that are not democratically elected.


Over-reliance on capitalism
Instead of trying to get a more competent government in place libertarians just want to reduce the scope of the government or even eliminate it completely, there is however empirical evidence supporting the notion that a stateless or nearly stateless modern society would be functional,

The fact that the free market may be able to provide a solution does not mean the free market solution would be better, so far government issues money have proven to be superior to cryptocurrencies (less fees, better capabilities).

We currently have a very dysfunctional system for patents and copy right since we have tried to have capitalism provide what should be viewed as a public good "intellectual property" we pay for that every day in the form of intellectual stagnation.


The vintologi power law
The amount of totalitarianism in a society has an equilibrium point. If you restrict the power of the government you end up with lower level totalitarian control instead (organized crime, psychiatry, corporations, parents over their kids, sects, etc).

Ordinary "checks and balances" only changes who has the power, by making the supreme court more powerful you make other branches of the government less powerful. By making it easier to impeach the president you simply empower congress at the expense of the president.

If we allow citizens to instantly remove the rulers from power via a vote you just end up with more mob rule, technical solutions for this is to allow the citizens to call snap elections or by allowing citizens to change their vote at any time and not having periodic elections.

If we put into restrictions to halt the spread of disease people will end up having their lives controlled by pathogens instead including not being able to freely have sex with other humans due to the STD risk.


Limitation of central planning
If we go to far when it comes to controlling people it will hurt the economy and make the government less popular. Weaker economy and less technological advancement means it will become more difficult for the government to effectively control people.



A single governing body will not be able to properly rule over an entire economy, especially in the absence of market prizes.

The government can still control businesses but if a government owns too many companies it will not be able to properly manage them, thus a government might have to sell off some of the companies it owns due to not being willing/able to put into the effort required to properly govern them.


Well-known member
Maybe what's different about capitalist democracy is that it tends to be the system used by whites. There are social democracies in Hispanic countries like Latin America where they keep electing leftists. In the recent caucuses in Nevada, Latinos helped give Bernie Sanders a bunch of delegates, so it seems that even though our system hasn't changed, the changing demographics are going to transform our country's leadership if this trend keeps up.

Bernie Sanders would probably wreck our economy if he could get his agenda through Congress. What makes capitalism work is that we decentralize production down to the level of competing firms and allow consumer choice, rather than having Bernie decide what health care the whole country should get. The choice of capitalism vs. communism is probably more important than the choice between democracy and dictatorship; e.g. Chile was probably better off under Pinochet's dictatorship than it would have been under Allende's democratic socialism.

Whites are able to have a capitalist democracy, while Latinos seem to need a dictator to impose capitalism or else they just end up electing Marxists.


The choice of capitalism vs. communism is probably more important than the choice between democracy and dictatorship; e.g. Chile was probably better off under Pinochet's dictatorship than it would have been under Allende's democratic socialism.
The thing with successful non democracies is that they tend to eventually democratize for some reason and then they might be able to just capitalize on the previous momentum.

People in general will not vote for change and thus the successful policies already in place will stay.



About the economic argument for democrazy
One argument for democracy is that it has overall resulted in more economic growth than other forms of governments.

The issue is that economic growth does not automatically translate to better quality of life or happiness, nor will it guarantee that the resources are spent on things that are overall good. Instead what tend to happen is that an incompetent that is empowered and we end up in a nightmarish situation where people are dis-empowered by an even expanding government.

As society advances technologically it becomes increasingly important to have a competent government, we cannot rely on minority rule or companies only focused on maximizing their profit to build a great society, it will not allow us to conolize other planet or to leave meaningful lives.



The vintologi legislature law
The scope of legislation will increase exponentially to the point where laws no longer place any limit on who can be punished and for how long. Since direct rule is more efficient than "rule of law" a system formally starting out as indirect rule via laws will naturally change into the more efficient rule of law system.

Eventually not breaking the law will be impossible and the punishments that can legally be given to you will increase exponentially with time, thus the only limiting factor is that you will die eventually and thus they will have to resort to cruel and unusual punishment such as psychiatry to maximize the possible exercise of social control.


About corruption
Corruption is a natural consequence in you having limited power. If your salary as public official is low you will be more tempted to accept bribed and if your salary is high you will be incentivized to take action to make sure you are allowed to stay in power.

Having a strong central (unified) government makes it easy to fight corruption and fix issues with society, nobody will be able to bribe the leader(s) since they already control the entire government including finances and they will not have to face re-election either.

In reality however the power of the ruling elite will not be absolute, it may seem so on paper but reality dont function like that, they will still need to make sure they are able to remain in power and this will very likely involve totalitarian social control (unavoidable).


Military elite rule
An elite taking control over a country will be able to enjoy abusing their powers in many ways. If the elite takes power ruthlessly they are also likely to rule ruthlessly. The ruling elite will divide the population into several classes.

A the ruling elite.
B selected citizens.
C citizens/tourists.
D Slaves.
E non-citizens not allowed within the border
F military targets.

A0 citizens(15)
These are the members of the senate and has the higher legislative and judicial power. Each senator chooses a first to forth successor that will takeover once he dies or resigns. The senators are numbered 0 to 14 and if the vote ends with draw the vote of the lowest numbered voting senator will decide.

A1 citizens(85)
State governor, cabinet member or first successor to a senator. The senate must be unanimous in order to remove an A1-citizen from his post. 15 A1 citizens or a single A0-citizen can request an A-vote or delay the replacement of a deputy senator by 100 days.

A2 citizens(115)
Deputy governor, second to forth successor to a senator or deputy to a cabinet member. A margin of 13 votes is required in the senate to remove an A2 citizen from his post.

A3 citizens(210)
Second to forth deputy governor or second to forth deputy to a cabinet member. A margin of 11 votes is required in the senate to remove an A3 citizen from his post.

A4 citizens(575)
Each A4-citizen will select a B-citizen as successor. If the A4-citizen dies/resigns without selecting a successor the senate will choose one, he will be added as A4-citizen if the senate was unanimous or if 7 days has passed without a new candidate getting more votes in the senate.

Any changes to how the country is governed can forced via the A-vote where A-citizens are the only ones allowed to vote and have one vote each. A senator or 15 A1-citizens to request it and that the new suggestion for how to govern wins by a margin of at least {senators opposing the change}² votes.

The possibility to do an A-vote limits the power of the executive branch of the government, it is up to the A-citizens to come up with good limitations for the judiciary. Thus, the small number of senators is controlled by a much larger number of A-citizens.

Only nationals of class A can be chosen as successors to senators, governors, cabinet members. When the senate votes to remove an A-citizenship there will be a delay period or at least (1000,500,350,250,200,150,100,50) days before the change takes effect for a win margin of (8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15) in the senate. A unanimous senate is allowed to replace any A-citizens with other individuals and it will take 50 days or longer until the change is implemented.

B citizens(10000)
If the number of B-citizens drops below 9991 a A1 or A0 citizen will be given 120 hours to select 10 new B1-citizens, the A0 and A1 citizens will take turns selecting the new B1 citizens starting with the 15 senators. An A-citizen can choose any B1 citizen as successor(becomes B0 citizen).

The senate can add any number of new B1-citizens with a margin of 5 votes. If the number of B-citizens remains less than (13000,17000,25000) the senate can add new B-citizens with a margin of (2,3,4) votes. The senate requires a margin of at least 6 votes to limit the time and individual is allowed to B-citizen and the minimum time before downgrade will be (500,350,250,175,125,100,75,50,25,0) for win margin of (6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15) votes.

C0 full citizenship.
C1 permanent residence.
C2 temporary residence.
D0 free slave, have to pay an additional amount of tax each month to the state.
D1 slave you have to threat well (owned by C0 or higher).
D2 slave not allowed to be killed or very seriously injure.
D3 slave with no rights.
E0 very limited legal protections.
E1 No legal protections.
F0 low value military target.
Fn military target of value {F0 value}*10^(n/10)

The cabinet consists of 20 specialists but is not given any additional power by the constitution besides the powers given to all A1 citizens. It will be similar to the current united states cabinet in terms of individuals and they will be valuable as leaders in their fields.

You need to pass physical and mental tests to get a C0 citizenship, in addition C0 citizen will be allowed to vote in some referendums.

Your citizen-class will determine which weapons you are allowed to possess and carry, non-citizens are not allowed to carry any weapons, C0 will be allowed to keep and bear light arms(no license required) while B will be allowed to keep and bear very heavy weapons. Citizens in control of private jets, tanks, etc will all have A-citizenship.

The issue with pure elite rule is that the elite may not choose new members for the elite in a good way(this is why companies and organizations often fail). The ruling elite will have to come up with a good selection process that will allow prominent citizens to be a part of the ruling elite, objective selection criterias such as score on tests or taxes paid can be used to determine who will become a member of the ruling elite.


When democracy fail
When a technically democratic system fails people will point fingers and try to blame a small minority such as Jews or wealthy people in general. In any democracy the battle will be to win over masses and this will create a propaganda arms-race where a lot of actors have a lot to gain from spreading misinformation to the public.

Strong outside governments will be incentivized to meddle in elections and this may result in a bad candidate winning due to outside influense (russia, china, saudi arabia, etc).

In reality bad outcomes is to be expected when a democratic system is implemented, this can be predicted from theory, the nature of the bad outcome will however depend on circumstances.

Often the actual bad outcomes of democracies are not even viewed as bad by most citizens.



About sortition
An attempt to fix the issue of people not being motivated to properly research things is to instead randomly select citizens that will then govern directly.

Technically this is simply a form of elite rule, it's not democracy. The people being selected may start out as typical citizens but with time they will learn more and thus become like an elite.

It's not clear that selecting new people to randomly to replace old experienced senators would even be overall beneficial. The advantages are
0. people would be less likely to rebel since they might themselves become a part of the elite one day
1. you would get new people with new perspectives instead of getting stuck on your old ways

The disadvantages however are
2. the new people would be less experienced.
3. lack of continuity.

The system can be made less egalitarian by raising the standards for becoming citizen that can be selected, this would allow the rulers to make sure people they like are able to take over instead of just giving everyone a chance. One similarity with reprasentative democracy via election is the fact that the selected/elected ones will be able rig the next election/sortition.


democracy does not have a good track-record
In a democracy people will vote for short term comfort instead of doing what need to be done
• democratic country almost never expand their borders.
• the democratic countries in europe was obliterated by the might of nazi germany (dictatorship).
• the nazis were mostly defeated by the sovjet union (another dictatorship).
• due to democracy most countries have the Age of Consent at 15 or higher, biology is ignored.
• democracies fail to do what need to be done against christianity, islam and neonazism.
• democracies all around the world got raped by china "forced technology transfers".
• US failed to win the vietnam war.
• all western democracies have shit fertility rates.
• we will face catastrophic global warming soon due to not doing what need to be done.
• US had to rely on russian soyuz to get to ISS.
• US failed to act against the sovjet union in time allowing them to build a very powerful nuclear arsenal.
• Still almost no implementation of human genetic engineering.
• psychiatry, it's really bad.


Still even with these failures democracies have still performed a lot better than what simple theory would predict and this can be explained by media playing a big role in shaping public opinion.

This may work for a while but it's not a stable system, for better or worse it will eventually come to an end.


Democrazy is more like a constant civil war, where one side gets stuff from the other. The arms race-race is always there, you use misinformation and propaganda to get more stuff from the other group. The only times where those differences CAN be bridged is during war or a global pandemic. People will blame those who gamed the system, that they all played, to the highest degree and - just from a game theory point of view - it will be a group that persuades other groups to be open minded and egalitarian, while being nepotists to their own.

A simple bait and switch (what we call virtue signaling) is enough to get a long way.


Citizen class: max number of individuals (specialization)

A0: 35 (high court)
A1: 19 (executive council)
A2: 15 (science board)
A3: 15 (legislature)
A4: 13 (financial board)
A5: 11 (board of education)
A6: 9 (confidential research board)
A7: 7 (open research board)
A8: 7 (board of arts & aesthetics)
A9: 7 (board of recreation).
A10 to A120: 1

If two boards rule against each other the board highest up on the list above will overrule the other board. Only A0 and A1 citizens can appeal to a general A-vote and this require 10 (A0, A1)-citizens to make the appeal.

The executive council will be responsible for international affairs, defence and the police.


Why does elite rule often change into full democracy?
Many countries have had system where the right to vote was highly undemocratic such as giving people with higher income far more votes (sweden had that for a while) but almost without exception there systems has eventually evolved to giving everyone the right to vote.

It is worth noting that typically the system of only giving the right to vote to some people worked just fine historically and it can be argued letting everyone vote was a change for the worse.

Even the 'elite' wants democracy
Part of the reason is probably that a lot of people very much like the idea of allowing everyone to vote and thus once you start to grant the right to vote to enough people it will just keep expanding until pretty much everyone (18+) has been given that right. It can be the case that people of the upper class support democracy for emotional reasons rather than trying to figure out what the most effective way to govern a country is.

Hidden undemocratic structures
Democracies typically contain undemocratic structures such as centralized media resulting in it not actually being that democratic in practice, Thus people of the true elite might prefer democracy if it allows them to still rule essentially behind the shadows.