> - Your vote counts in proportion to your expected remaining years left in society.

At what age do you get negative votes?

> - If you have kids, you get their votes, split with the other parent. So a 10 year old would give each parent roughly 35 extra votes.

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.

> - When you vote, it's a quiz. The questions will be known questions out of a bank of maybe 10k questions, and the quiz is 100 random questions

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.

> - Term limits. Maybe just a single term of 10 years. Takes time to learn politics, like anything else. But also we want people to make decisions that aren't just about getting re-elected. If you know you're leaving eventually you can just focus on getting the things done that are important.

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.

> - Large salary and large pension for the MPs. Independent commission that looks at all your finances in private, during and after tenure. Flags things that it finds flagworthy.

In David Eddings' Tamuli books there's a republic that elects people to office (often against their will). Upon becoming an officeholder their entire assets (minus, presumably, a house) are liquidated and converted into government bonds. If the government does well, then their net worth increases. If it does poorly, then their net worth decreases. If done in the real world there would definitely be possibilities for manipulation here, but in general it seems an interesting idea.

> - Not sure about geographic seats.

Multi-representative districts might be a better idea. There are plenty of local matters that have knock-on effects outside of the locality (such as distribution of water rights from a river). Doing it your way we'd have to have elections for "super regions" between the local (or state) and federal level.

Geographic representation also allows a rep to really know both the federal regulations, and the local regulations of one place, which allows them to better assist constituents, and to consider the effect of federal law changes on said constituents.