A wacked idea

You know it's pretty radical when I label it a wacked idea, as opposed to all my other ideas that everyone else thinks are wacked but I think are pretty reasonable. I'm not even sure it's a good idea, but it's a thought, and since I write thoughts here...

I was thinking that votes should be weighted by both education (in lieu of intelligence, which is hard to objectively quantify) and experience. Not so much as, say, the super-delegates compared to the normal delegates in the democratic party, where one special person's vote is worth 100,000 normal people's votes. More like something on the order of 5-1, for a 60 year old with 40 years of work experience and a college degree vs an 18 year old high school dropout on welfare who barely speaks English.

Sure, this would have problems, like the arbitrariness of the qualifications and the inevitable politicizing of the criteria. But the whole equal vote thing just strikes me as doing a fundamental disservice to the country and the election process. Why should the vote of an educated, experienced, productive member of society who understands the issues and comprehends what's long-term beneficial for the country be canceled out by the vote of the high school dropout moron voting for the candidate with the best smile and the sweetest, nebulous, unrealistic, unfounded, and pandering rhetoric of change and prosperity for all?

Wouldn't the country be better off by biasing the electorate toward thinking people?