I feel like the point/idea of meritocracy is that you get competent people making informed decisions in government, not you reward the people who appear most skilled.
Or you hold tournaments, and whoever survives may rule.
"Competent" is a nebulous concept, even when compared to "apparent skill."
Here's what we do.
Hopeful political leaders sign up to the Government Academy (run by an independent commission with as many layers of arbitration and quality control as the state can afford). They get training in How To Govern, managing priorities, organising development, all that stuff. Side classes on political history, debating skills, pros and cons of different ideologies.
After they've graduated through all that, they get appointed to some random town or district for a year or so to prove their skills. They get a grade based on how various demographics have changed during their term (with allowances for things like legislation changes, disasters, and so on).
Candidates who can reduce commuting times, improve safety, grow businesses, and plan development effectively get higher grades than people who faff around. Approval rating is more or less a modifier, people who fuck everything up but are loved by the people get kicked out immediately, people who are generally hated but achieve a great deal get put on a PR course.
Eventually, the people with the best grades make it to the top, and nobody realises the real government is actually just the Commission.