> At what age do you get negative votes?

Your remaining life expectancy is never negative. That's just a statistical fact. It's not your life expectancy at birth, though a figure in the same region is more or less where you're likely to die until you get quite close. So for instance if you're 10 your remaining might be 70 years (ie expected 80), when you're 60 it's 25 years (ie expected 85). Past about 90 people are down to single digit remaining years.

> Because we all know that parents know what's best for their kids, or even care what's best for their kids? What about foster parents? What about parents who have been deemed unfit by a court? Wouldn't this just encourage unamicable divorces, especially in mixed-party households? And, of course, the Quiverfulls and Octomoms become a disproportionately large voting block.

Ok but who is better than the parents at deciding what's good for the kids? Other people? We seem to be happy for parents to decide a lot of things for their kids, why not this thing?

It doesn't matter whether you're married or divorced, you get half the votes of the kids. At the moment that's still the case, right? Whether you're married or not you and your partner get a vote each, and you can't take the other person's votes.

Unfit parents, deceased parents shares, foster parents, minor quibbles. They don't add up to much. I'd say foster parents get the votes, courts can decide if you're unfit, and the deceased parents votes go to the surviving parent.

Yes octomom will have a zillion votes. There's one of her. Big families, yes, they get more votes. Shouldn't they? They have more stake in society. There's more of them!

> The problems with quizzes is that they are 1) going to be forced choice (with only one correct answer, that a biased person decided was correct, or at least only one answer getting the majority of the weight); 2) Salience of the questions; 3) There are too many additional criticisms, just look up "cultural bias in IQ tests" to get an idea of why fact-based quizzes are a bad idea.

Yeah this is probably the most controversial one. I don't know, you can weaken the strength of the quiz so everyone's weight is 100 + percent correct. We want engaged voters, but we don't want to disenfranchise people. There's no value that will satisfy everyone.

> The criticisms with this are 1) Unelected employees of the government gain more power, as they are the people the inexperienced representatives go to for advice; 2) If they aren't making decisions about getting re-elected (which hopefully would be about what the people who voted for them like, and not just gerrymandering or voter suppression), then they are making decisions that will personally benefit them after they are no-longer representatives. Such as the "important thing" of enabling particular industries to thrive at the expense of other considerations; industries which are likely to become their employer when they leave office.

Indeed, the thing about the civil service is well known. It is a problem in every well-run country.

The commission for MP income is meant to deal with the corruption issue. If you decide to make solar panels and windmills illegal and then take a job in the coal industry, they will tell someone.

> Multi-representative districts might be a better idea.

Generally how PR systems work already.