To do that, you "just" have to implement a genuine and functional democracy.
But to do that, you'd first have to realize that the one you have is not that. This part is not possible.
The answer is tighter regulation and laws, and less kowtowing to corporations and 'evil' countries.
I am beginning to think it is not possible, to put it mildly.
The way I see it, if you have an uneducated, irrational population, or being a significant portion of a population, they need to be managed. They shouldn't be having a say in everything, they are not qualified to have a say in most things. They are basically children. They're basically children.
So to get there, you need to basically eradicate that population by mandating education, and certain types of education. Those same people are going to resist, but really that's the only way, and you need to do that even if there is a cost.
On the other hand: how does one determine who is rational? Once again, you're back to opinion/consensus.
I don't think that has to be the case. There are a lot of objective standards you could apply and tests you can do.
For example, as a somewhat bad example, ask people if they trust vaccines or not, and if not why not.
Epistemology and non-binary logic are not just complex, they're counterintuitive.
However in this case, your excellent "and if not why not qualifier" could possibly save the day...but then it comes down to whether the judge doesn't get it wrong.
Not wanting to get the vaccine is not the disqualifier, but the reasons justifying that decision could be.
Truth and agreement at the abstract level where we're working right now is easy, but the move to the object level is anything but (even though it seems easy).
People of good repute with the necessary qualifications to understand scientific findings.
Really, that's it. We're mostly just trying to stop the cuckoo fox news/alex jones crowd from voting and for good reason.