Tired of timid bromides offered by both parties that can’t make a difference? Well, here’s an idea so far outside the box it may not get the hearing it deserves: It’s time to disenfranchise men and allow only women to vote.

This isn’t pandering to the fairer sex; it’s practical. And I’m not talking about forever. If we could deny men the vote for, say, five years – which strikes me as modest payback for the centuries women were kept suppressed and voteless – we could create a better, saner America.

Why do I say this? Suppose that you want an America in which everyone has basic health coverage, every full-time worker earns a living wage, and every poor child has a great teacher in a fixed-up school. I’m with you; in fact, I want these things so much I wrote a book (called “The Two Percent Solution”) about how both parties might come together on this agenda in ways that blend the best of liberal and conservative approaches – and while still leaving government as small as it was when Ronald Reagan was president. After asking some top political consultants how to make the ideas more actionable, I commissioned a poll for the book as well.

That’s when I found out: Men are the problem. “Welcome to my world,” said my pollster, Guy Molyneux of Peter Hart Research, who knew what was coming.

At first glance, as I read the poll results, I thought his prediction would prove wrong. Health care was the first area we tested. The proposal was to give low-income workers who don’t get insurance from their employers a federal grant that allows them to purchase basic health coverage.

After hearing brief arguments for and against the idea, 57 percent of women favored it; only 29 percent opposed. Yet men also supported it 51-43 – not a resounding margin, but one still suggesting they view health care as ripe for action.

(Interestingly, Republican women favored the health-care proposal by 52-32, while GOP men opposed it, 38-52. If those ladies would just have a word with their husbands, I thought, we’d have this thing sold).

But that was the high-water mark for men, who plainly tune out and begin brooding about their guns once you get past health coverage.

The next proposal we tested aimed to do something about the tens of millions of people living in or near poverty, despite living in homes headed by full-time workers. We asked voters about greatly increasing the federal tax credit for low-wage workers, so that full-time workers would have an income of at least $9 an hour, lifting most above the poverty line.

This federal living wage supplement won by 51-39 among women; among men it lost by 40-52.

Finally, we tested a proposal to dramatically raise salaries for the best teachers in order to recruit higher-caliber college graduates, especially for the poor kids who need better teachers the most. At the same time the plan would make it easier to fire the poorest-performing teachers. Women supported the concept 46-40; men opposed it 35-56.

Each of the proposals we polled had to be oversimplified to fit into a short survey, but the message came through loud and clear. This kind of agenda could pass on Venus. It’s an uphill battle on Mars.

Everyone has a theory purporting to explain why this is so. Women are nurturing types who cherish health care and education; men think about battleships and nukes. Makes sense, I suppose, but I don’t pretend to know the full answer, and I’d just as soon skip the psychoanalysis.

I’m not saying men are irredeemable. They can learn. They can be educated. But look what we’re working with. Who knows how long it will take men to get wise to what makes for a decent society? If we’re looking for results in that can-do American spirit, why wait?

I say, deal men out of the vote for five years. Put the right sports on TV and they’ll hardly notice. When the dust clears we’ll have a one heck of a country. Can’t Oprah, Dr. Phil and the other mega-hosts who reach women get this debate going?

Matthew Miller is a syndicated columnist and author. Reach him on the Web at www.mattmilleronline.com.