(because there are just as many weak, foolish men as there are flighty, capricious women, and they vote for the same fucking things)

Big fucking doubt. Weak foolish men exist, but the claim that there are exactly just as many men like that as there are flighty, capricious women voting for the societal suicide is absurd. By every metric I've seen that attempts to measure that, it appears politically retarded women vastly outnumber politically retarded men. On average they're comically more easy to manipulate with contradictory emotional bullshit or an illusory consensus, and the polls show it every time. Even the sane or based ones aren't typically that way inherently, just by means of having an especially grounded close social circle to outweigh the wider media influences

You can't have a "strict" meritocracy because weighting merit comparisons between disparate fields is subjective, nevermind somehow measuring the wider merit to society from your non-working behavior. Strict and subjective do not belong together, nor do strict and incomplete data. How do you objectively quantify the merit of an electrician's work versus a salesman's, for example?

You can try a strict adherence to specific merit proxies perhaps. Like income. But in a job market that is anything but meritocratic and a financial system that is both cooked and cucked, that's a shitty proxy that hands political power even more into the hands of rich liberal women in adult daycares or the Rothschilds and bankers, depending on how high you set the bar. You could try IQ tests, or some other general intelligence proxy, but even those have some subjective wiggle room in their weighting of the various cognitive tests that combine to approximate g or IQ, for example you could disproportionately favor people who have high verbal reasoning or facial emotion identification over people with good pattern recognition or abstract reasoning. Plus there's the problem that IQ is not quickly and easily verified at the polls, it relies on a prior institutional stamp of approval from a bunch of bureaucrats that are ripe for political infiltration and subversion. Also general intelligence is, well, general, whilst the political acumen to vote effectively in favor of either your own interests or the interests of your nation as a whole is a specific skillset. There are plenty of generally intelligent academics who have by some combination of necessity and cowardice have politically lobotomized themselves to survive in their fields, rather than live politically "undercover" as it were.

Simply put you can't just magically implement "meritocratic" voting because it's too ambiguous and easily manipulated by an already existing ideology to simply disenfranchise the opposition. The only method of limiting the franchise that is completely safe from incumbent manipulation is by overt, immutable characteristics that any member of the public can independently verify. The next most safe category is by permanent, objective rules rather than personal measurement (e.g. citizenship, or a set number of years of logged national service), which can still technically be falsified by a hostile bureaucracy, but the ease of catching fraud is still high enough to deter blatant mass manipulation.

Ironically if the presence of a handful of good eggs prevents you from seeing the value of removing a group that is measurably more of a net negative overall than the rest of the population, in a zero sum game where the candidate with the highest relative vote proportion takes all the power. Then that would make you one of the uncommonly politically retarded men you're so quick to denounce. Rather than the results focused, competent sociopath you supposedly desire to be.