And remember, the key to the system was that the person had to turn over his life, voluntarily, to the government for a period of time in return for being allowed to help run it. Aside from checking for certain aptitudes, you had no choice as to what they would have you do. Could include manning a post in Antarctica, or front-line combat. I can't find the specific part in the book, but I don't know if you were allowed to resign when you're term was up if war had been declared.

In any case, a little more sporty a proposition than your average high school.

Okay, just like in our own military, maybe most people would spend their terms in the FS equivalent of Fort Dix, but the point is, you wouldn't know going in, and that's where the responsibility and social maturity factors weigh in. Hopefully, making a better voter in the end.

It would be worth some research to find out how veterans in our own society compare with those who had never served as far as being good citizens is concerned. How do conscripted veterans compare with volunteers? How do WWII veterans compare with Viet Nam, or Gulf War, or those who never saw any combat? What about people who sign up for other kinds of service to their country? What kind of citizens are former Peace Corp volunteers? Any other examples come to mind?

But how the heck do you objectively and scientifically measure good citizenship anyway? Cripes, if there actually was a fail-safe way to do this, we might have our working voting test!

(BTW, I recommend you go back and read "Starship Troopers" again! How long has it been since you read it, and how old were you at the time?)