There are a few points here.
First of all I too would be against the idea of some sort of meritorcracy for voting. What I do support is the idea of having voters who KNOW what they are doing. We don’t expect people from Australia to have a say in USA elections. All elections that I know of have some definition of who can vote and it’s usually those who have a vested interest in the election results. In our case voters would have to be members of WGI. How else could we call ourselves an organisation?
That brings us to the second point: who is a member? A very basic requirement would have to be that a member supports the working of WGI financially. Otherwise we are daft! We are worrying about finances and then not sharing that burden with those for whom WGI exists.
I agree that WGI is not fully in the QWs of people. That’s why I have been working almost non-stop for the past weeks on the new website. It plays a central role in the networking that is the main plus for WGI.
It’s not qualification=vote; it is membership of WGI=vote in WGI.