I believe in the averaging power of mass selfish voting. If everyone votes entirely selfishly then we get a more objective picture of what the interests of the people in a given area actually are, rather than what a razor-thin minority of people would rather they were. More votes (with a voting system that actually works) also curbs the power of any one vote, so it becomes more likely that every single person can get most of what they want (unless what they want is so far removed from the general desires of their local population), instead of the chosen few getting everything and everyone else getting nothing at all.

Putting "the country" above your own interests is a form of being manipulated, because "the country" is an idea supplied by whatever political groups can propagate their notion of "the country" most effectively.

>The issue with everyone being able to vote also is that it drowns out the voices of informed voters. So manipulation via propaganda becomes very powerful.

The problem with uninformed voters is more to do with the media landscape and the ownership and incentive structure that exists there than who can and can't vote and yet again, we circle back to the issue of who gets to decide who gets to be "informed". Should we take the vote away from people who read news sources we don't like or should we do more to stop those newspapers from misinforming people? I prefer the latter honestly, despite them maybe not being entirely mutually exclusive.