It's at the very CORE of the problem. Voting and the franchise is a tool, and it's a tool being placed in the hands of people who are demonstrating a distinct lack of ability to recognize its potential for benefit or harm. More to the point, nothing is being done right now to improve their ability to wield that tool effectively - the opposite is the case. We're seeing all the other rights in jeopardy, and people having this one right is not improving that - if anything it seems to be making the situation worse. The fact that people cannot and will not understand that a polite suggestion to the government that isn't backed by an implication that "right now we're doing things the easy way, but we will absolutely do this the hard way if you fuck it up" is a toothless plea for mercy from an utterly merciless gestalt-machine of powerseeking sociopaths surrounded by useful idiots is a CORE FAILING OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS.
You still haven't demonstrated anything more than an incidental relationship between the existence of universal suffrage and the problems you're attributing to it, and your insinuation that democracy makes these problems worse is demonstrably false, because so far every one you have mentioned is measurably worse in societies which don't have universal suffrage. I have pointed this out to you multiple times now, and you keep refusing to see sense. It's really getting rather tiresome.
If you want the general public to care about the things you care about, then why not become politically active, and try to raise awareness about these issues? Why not educate yourself about how to best persuade people, and engage in effective community organizing, or start a grassroots campaign? If you can't or won't do that, then you're in no position to be lecturing the general public about being apathetic or ignorant, and you're certainly in no position to suggest that their right to choose their representatives is superfluous, when it has clearly been no more useful in your hands.
Like I said earlier: people have complained about the flaws of democracy for thousands of years. Your complaints about voter apathy, ignorance, and the effective use of state propaganda to beguile the public are not new, and they likely aren't going to disappear in the near future. The persistent problem viewpoints like yours have, however, is that you have not provided evidence of a better alternative: you have not demonstrated that limiting the franchise is the solution to the problems you've identified, and you never will, because it clearly isn't.
This is pretty much what I mean though. I'm pointing out a group that is disenfranchised from being able to participate in democracy by being made unable to communicate. Ignoring that reality, means you're either so out of touch or so dishonest that you'll attack the idea of it by calling it a persecution complex. It reminds of that time a UK university cancelled a student run international men's day event. They had planned to talk about the rising suicide rates. The university released a statement that they'll continue to fight for gender equality by focusing on women only.
The groups you mention aren't prevented from participating in democracy though; they've simply lost a lot of cultural influence, and their opinions may face marginalization in society as a result of that. This is something to be concerned about, for sure, but it's an entirely separate discussion from the one around universal suffrage. People with fringe political opinions have the same right to vote as everyone else, and you can hardly argue that it is the right to vote itself which is responsible for this marginalization you speak about. Compare the level of free speech in countries which have universal suffrage, to ones that don't, and the evidence is abundantly clear.
