Here's another GREAT idea courtesy of an Aussie friend. No mandatory military service. But volunteers get to vote. Avoiders don't! LIKE IT?

My friend told me that. He didn't say he invented it Walt. Just wanted to share it. I like it though a lot. Do you? Thank you for your reply! :)

I don't like it.
As Shuhak says, there are people who can't serve in the military for whatever reason.
Even if they are physically/mentally capable of serving, what about those who don't on moral ground?

Though, if I remember, Alvin York (Sgt York) was a "conscientious objector".
According to his biography, one reason he was so accurate/deadly with his shooting was to reduce the number of lives he had to take.

An alternative idea that has been proposed by some, is to require a certain number of any type "community service" to be eligible to vote.
Military service, sure.  But also things like volunteering to clean alongside roads.  ("community service" as a punishment wouldn't count)
I would favor that, if there must be a service requirement.

Well how about this? People who run for PRESIDENT should have served the country in the military? Would you settle for that? I mean IKE KNEW what sending our soldiers into a battle meant. He lived it. The dumb cluck duck thinks they are HIS TOY SOLDIERS to move around and order around. They die. So what? No skin off his nose. More where they came from. When you have the power to send people to their deaths I think there should be some requirements beyond just being "commander in chief". Do you? Anyway it's moot. It is what it is and that's all that it is. Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Happy Friday to thee and thine! :)

Still, I'd say "No".

Back to my example of a "conscientious objector".
I would rather have one of those as President, than someone who served in the military.
Sure, the person who served MAY understand what it's like to "stand in harm's way" - but they may also have been a cook and never actually seen fighting.
The CO, on the other hand, believes in not using military force.  So they would focus on finding diplomatic solutions.  (which, IMO, government doesn't do often enough)

Note:  There's a difference between avoiding military service because one is a "conscientious objector", and avoiding it because of personal risk or inconvenience.

This post was edited by Walt O'Reagun at October 9, 2020 7:06 AM MDT

Let me try again and put it in terms I can best understand Walt. I will listen about pregnancy to a woman who has given birth. To a woman who just has read about it? What does she KNOW about what it feels like? I believe in trusting those who are experienced first hand. I want a surgeon who has a license to cut me open. I want a lawyer who knows what's in those law books and has first-hand defended and won many cases. Not someone who hasn't even passed the bar. Why would you not want that? Why would you rather depend on those who are not experienced in what they have power over? Thank you for your reply.

That's the purpose of the President's Cabinet and Advisors.
It's not possible for a single mortal to have knowledge in all areas that a President oversees.
He may have been a general in the military, so (allegedly) knows war and you don't rise to the rank of general without playing politics.  But has little experience with running intelligence operations, or border controls, or economics, or environmental issues (for a few examples).
So they are supposed to utilize experts for things they don't know.  (And even things they do know, it doesn't hurt to have a second opinion.)

Or, using your examples ... a President oversees agencies that have power over all 3.  Women's issues, health care, and legal matters.  How many females have degrees in both law and medicine, AND served in the military?

Personally, I don't think most Presidents utilize their power to get advice from experts enough.
A President wants to know how best to handle an issue?  Call for the top experts in the field to come to the White House, and if they all agree on a solution - seriously consider it.  If they don't agree, at least you have the most informed choices possible. This post was edited by Walt O'Reagun at October 9, 2020 11:23 AM MDT

You put a lot of thought and time into your reply which I appreciate. Here's what going on though. Sending troops to war kills them. Life and death Walt. I do not equate experience in a battlefield with having a law degree or M.D. Same with giving birth. It is a very PERSONAL thing. It is not the same as knowing the meaning of the word TORT. There are some things that weigh far more heavily on outcomes than others. Going o fight a war and giving birth are just two examples. I know a president can't have experience in everything. But sending people to their deaths and knowing nothing whatsoever about it? Not remotely the same thing. So I guess what we have here is a failure to communicate. We just see it differently. A football coach should have played football. Football played with ignorance can harm the players and damage them for life. Wrong headgear for example. But a tennis coach or a bowling coach? See the difference? They are not the same thing at all. Okay. I'll stop for now. Maybe I'm just stuck here. I get stuck sometimes. If I get unstuck I'll let you know! Okey dokey?

There are many ways and places you can serve. It doesn't always have to be in battle. But I understand your point. How about this? Anyone who wants to be a president should have served his/her country in the military? Why? Because only then does a president truly understand the consequences of sending human beings to fight a war where death is oftentimes the destiny they face. I'm going to run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes. Thank you for your reply Shuhak.