Hypothetically, if you could accurately weight every person's vote by some measure of their expertise on the topic in question, would it be better or worse for democracy? I know it's somewhat fundamental that everyone gets as much say as anyone else, but I've never felt like my vote has made a difference, and I don't feel like it ever will, so long as there are so many other people voting. Prime example: many people really have no understanding of economics, and on any economic issue will vote to defend their wallets. However from a holistic perspective of the economy, sometimes there are courses of action that are better overall. Economics professors spend their lives studying these issues, and I feel that their votes should count more than everyone else's, including my own. Some professional economists will have 'bad' opinions, but generally the more educated should vote more 'correctly' on average, and hence should have a greater degree of representation. It also excludes Ted Stevens from any Internet-related legislation. I'm sure this has been discussed before, but it has always interested me.

If it exists, the government has it.

This series of flares and CMEs have ignited the strongest period of solar storms since 2005, according to an NOAA space weather advisory.

Sounds like pretty clear evidence of solar warming to me.