I really can't agree with her stance on making voting rights selective. The presumption that the few know what's best for the many doesn't appeal to me. It's the main reason I've never been a socialist.
But you could compare Scandanavian democracy with Australian / British democracy with American democracy and you see a sliding scale from government responsibility to individual responsibility. As they say in America, we let people go to hell their own way. Personally, I think the Scandanavian model has it about right.
In relation to your point about about "the few knowing what is best for the many", surely there is an argument that anyone who is religious believes, ultimately, in a benevolent dictatorship as the best form of ultimate government?
In some ways, we already have selective voting rights. If you are under the age of 18, you aren't entitled to vote. We do that because we don't think anyone under 18 is capable of making sensible decisions and/or is not sufficiently aware of the issues to be able to cast a meaningful vote. Similarly, if you're serving a prison sentence of longer than 3 years we say you forfeit your right to vote. We do that as a way of punishing people who cannot live by our laws. Often those people make one stupid mistake and are otherwise sensible.
Contrast that with someone like, for example (and I don't know him), Todd Carney. He continues to make stupid mistake after stupid mistake. If he'd hit and killed a family whilst driving drunk, he'd be spending more than 3 years in prison and would no longer be voting. His decision making isn't any sounder from having not hit a family, he was just lucky.
It seems arbitrary to me to suggest that Todd Carney is able to vote but a guy is prevented from voting who (to use a made up example) murders a paedophile or rapist for interfering with his children. In the latter scenario, someone who has otherwise been of sound mind and a valued member of the community is unable to vote for doing something most of us have at least some sympathy for whilst the former, who is just serially stupid, can carry on voting.
As I said to Brown Hornet, I don't really think she is suggesting that only people with an IQ of over 150 should be allowed to vote. But I do think she is challenging us to ask our government and our media to treat our intelligence with more respect. There is no doubt in my mind that politicians are not held to account from an intellectual perspective. It really is a sound bite democracy.