>No, they are saying that your so-called idea has already been tried, but what actually happened was that <insert majority> who already had control set it up so <insert majority> could vote easily while <insert minority> could not.

That already exists in our current system. Whoever's parents reproduced the most, now has majority of votes. Home owners are majority and decide housing policies for those who don't owe property.

Are these more fair, or just another form of mob rule we got accustomed to out of centuries of inertia, like fish in the water? When did we decided that rules from 300 years ago shouldn't be touched to be updated to reflect current challenges?

>There is no such thing as an "objective test" for your case, because someone somewhere would need to determine it is objective.

Currently it's our legal system that decides what is fair and objective, that's how it works today in most countries. And that's not set in stone, but can always be changed on a dime if the majority of the population decides to, or in case of national catastrophes like war, since all laws are made up and only enforceable as long as the majority of the society with support of the military agree with them.

>Who verifies that person, and who verifies the people who verify them?

Who verifies the judge is fair? Who verifies that person who verifies the judge? And so on. Same principles here.