Hasbeen, you're not the first to come up with that terrible idea. The problem it's a solution to is a figment of many people's imaginations.

In reality the people who vote in their own interest rather than the national interest are spread across all income groups. And disenfranchising those who aren't successful yet would create class warfare, as some rich people would cement their own power by denying opportunities to others.

Dear Belly,

«And are you sure many who vote now, at any age, understand who and why they are voting for»

Quite the contrary - and therefore those who do not understand what this is all about should not be forced to vote.

«Majorities are there because they are the most wanted»

Majorities are currently there due to a skewed electoral system that perpetuates their power.

The average elector, especially the average young elector who is too busy to add politics and elections to their busy schedule, knows only two things about politics:

1) The existence of the major parties - because the media talks about them all the time, almost exclusively and even present their debates; and
2) That if they failed to vote then they will be fined.

Anecdotally, in class at the gym the instructor just suggested: "don't waste your time voting on Saturday - come to this class instead", then she asked: "BTW, what's the fine for not voting? $20 I think?", then someone answered mentioning the additional $60 victims-of-crimes levy. "Oh, she said, in that case I suppose you must vote, but please do it AFTER class".

In theory, the electors can vote for anyone, but in practice they are not coordinated, so one happens to hear about this minor party and another hears about another minor party, but never at the same time. The small parties (and independents) just do not have the necessary funds to make themselves known.

In my view, parliament should consist of many small parties that represent the concerns of real people in the community, then they negotiate and bargain between them so that every citizen can get at least those things that are most important on their list.

This would mean that parliament actually serves the people rather than parties - what a contemptible/antithetical idea for present professional politicians.

parliament should consist of many small parties that represent the concerns of real people in the community
Yuyutsu,
If you vote for one of the bigger parties apart from ALP/LNP we could go the first step towards such a system. As long as the two majors only have a sabotaging opposition rather than a proper controller keeping them in line, things won't change.
Right now, thanks to the Coalition, the Nation is in recovery mode & to put a stop to that mid-way to let proven squanderers to drag us back into the permanent debt cycle would get us into unrecoverable social & economic mayhem ! A third party controller would help the Coalition to govern instead of perpetually fighting off the opposition for opposing's sake !

The idea of voting is so that everyone votes for the ideas that they
like best, then those who have the greater number put in those that
best suit the majority.
Vote to suit yourself and the majority gets what it wants.

Ever since I have had kids, I have always voted for those I thought offered the best future for them.

Now I have grand kids I vote for the group or groups that I believe will offer them the best future. Offering me a hand out is the quickest way to lose my vote.

When it comes to voting, has anyone given thought to the other end of the scale, those suffering from old farts syndrome? I'm sure a simple test could be devised for the geriatric brigade to find out if they are compos mentis and deserving of the vote.

A typical question would be;

There was Papa Bear, Mama Bear, and who was the other bear?

Answers like, Rumpelstiltskin and Goldlocks would result in immediate disqualification from voting.

I'm sure that question alone would knock out several of the Forum's Usual Suspects who are already off with the fairies.