Regardless of whether one may like the initial selection criteria or not, what you describe is precisely why the country (USA) was supposed to be led by land owning free white men. The assumption being that people that fit that criteria, plausibly possessed a requisite initial selection criteria set of skills and knowledge that would constitute the pool of best qualified people to run a government in the common interest. From that pool of people their peers would further select amongst each other using those very same abilities, knowledge, skills, and capacities to further choose the utmost best person to lead.

I realize that just saying that may cause some consternation among some, but it is objectively the best selection system one could possibly devise, for any people anywhere, regardless of whether people like it or not.

It's not even a selection system that is not used all over the place from choices within your family where there are certain prerequisites like being an adult or a parent or having to be a member of the union in order to vote on union matters, or having achieved certain certifications and qualifications before you can make decisions about building a highway bridge.

It is and has not been a net benefit to any of us that "democracy" was first imposed and then expanded when the founders of the USA were very explicit about the fact that democracy was a recipe for disaster and would invariably cause destruction … as it has. Personally, I would very much have been ok with benefitting from properly qualified people making decision for me that I have no competent capacity to make for myself, rather than having lived in a society where everyone thinks they are equally smart and competent and my vote counts the same as some fool who does not know that a week is seven days (something I heard someone in her early 20s say yesterday. She thought the week excludes the weekend)