Weighted voting.

Why the fuck not?

It would not be based on educational degrees, or on income, race, sex etc.  It would center around exactly how well you know the candidates.  For example: every voter is entitled to one vote, as per usual.  It would be a (relatively) simple matter for an informed adult to test into a second vote, by articulating their political views, and demonstrating a certain degree of knowledge of all principal presidential and congressional candidates.  You could test into three or more votes (maybe four or five) only by demonstrating a knowledge of every candidate on every field on the ballot at your polling place  (with legal allowances if a couple of them bite it right before an election).  This process would have to be completed by interested registered voters for each new election, thus cutting down on gimme-votes-only the dedicated and informed would get their precious status votes, and good for them.  It would spark comparable numbers of conservatives and liberals, all vying for better-than-you votes, to actually KNOW things about THINGS.  Partisan bickering would get the acceptable "tests" (I envision simple, unambiguous, multiple choice questions, which we would all bitch about endlessly) to an acceptable place.

I mean, shit, we already have weighted voting in the form of an electoral college.  Let's just make our priorities explicit, and base them on something that actually matters.

Hmm... maybe... but I think it should be based on how early you get to the poll. After the weight of an individuals votes decrease exponentially as the day goes by. As the only volunteer poll worker under 55 this is relevant to my interests.

In America, anything that tests the intelligence or education of the voter is taboo because some states made people take tests to exclude blacks from voting.

Yet another good idea down the drain because of black people.

What the fuck?

Whatever happened to the good old democratic spirit?  You know, everyone gets one vote, tyranny of the majority and all that unless it impedes on constitutional rights.

Yeah, it stinks people are voting for things you absolutely disagree with but you know, democratic society?  You're better off fixing the system so it can support multiple political parties.

>>5

as I established above, your cherished ideals were never practiced in the first place-a vote in Iowa is more significant than one in California.

As for multiple parties, there is no systemic bias against them in America's political system-it's just that the two-party system has a very strong historical precedent.  People are fed up with both of those parties, however, and I think we'll see independents who aren't complete nutjobs actually win several big elections within the next 30 years.

There a bias in the national polical system in the US for a two party system. There is no proportional voting and cetera.

>>6
So to counter first-past-the-post problems, you propose to fuck it up even more with multiple votes per person?  Independents find it nearly impossible to gain entry exactly because of weighted voting.

Weighted votes per person is not the same as weighted per state.

But I think it is a stupid idea because there will be a lot of resentment. Not everybody, even if they tried very hard, can memorize the names and characteristics of all the candidates.

And outside-the-voting-booth-polls will be off a lot unless the number of votes one gets is public which is not a good idea at all because the resentment mentioned above could turn into violence.

"It would center around exactly how well you know the candidates."
And who decides how much it is worth that you know something about a very obscure candidate? This system would be extremely prone to manipulation, moreso than what the US has now (quite an accomplishment). But even if that problem didn't exist, you would have the problem that cumulative voting is tactically equivalent to first-past-the-post.

I recommend that you read up about stuff like "Approval Voting" and "Beatpath Condorcet".