Weighted Vote

As I was watching the election results coming in last night, I got to thinking about the whole voting process. A democracy is based on the principle that the wisdom of the crowds will prevail - but that's making the assumption that people actually know what they're talking about when it comes to politics. And, as we've shown in previous elections, that's not always the best assumption.

So, what if we had a "weighted" vote? I know that this would be impossible to implement (talk about your logistics nightmares!) but what if?

Say, for example, you know pretty much nothing about the candidates, and you plan on voting based on a name or who "looks" more Presidential or who you'd want to have a beer with.* Your vote counts as one vote (same as now).

If, instead, you can articulate the positions of the different candidates and show a competent understanding of the issues, your vote counts as, say, 5 votes.

On the other hand, if you're voting based on what you've heard from rumors and smear campaigns, your vote counts as -2 votes. Whoever you vote for loses 2 votes.

(And yes, I realize people could say they're voting based on rumors and then vote for the other guy to make him lose votes. Again, I know this whole weighted vote thing would be impossible to implement from a practical standpoint; I'm just speaking hypothetically.)

Would this promote more civic involvement? Encourage more people to spend time learning about the issues and candidates' stances? Result in fewer smear campaigns? Or am I just punch-drunk from reloading cnn.com every 20 seconds last night?

*I know, I know, it should be "or the candidate with whom you'd like to share a beer." But that just sounds awkward.