Talk:Compulsory voting

Compulsory voting in non-democracies
The section "Compulsory voting in non-democracies" makes little sense. It seems to hinge on the last phrase "high voter turnout", but the latter only makes sense in a voluntary voting context. It also obliquely makes assumptions about what a "non democracy" is, with no context to support such assumptions. That doesn't mean it doesn't belong here, just that it's not very credible.


 * I assume the Soviet Union blurb ("Soviet Union: while de-jure voting was not obligatory, de-facto voting was enforced, to report that 99.8% of Soviet people "unanimously support" the current Soviet leader.") is a remainder of this from an older version of the article, and is likewise a slanted view (not saying it's incorect, but it does introduce somebody's unneeded personal view of the matter). The Zaire description that follows the SU description ("Zaire: Suffrage was universal and compulsory in Zaire, although the country was a single-party state (until 1990), and President Mobutu was the only candidate allowed to run in presidential elections.") is a better example of a neutral way of putting this. I think the SU info tidbit should be changed to look more like the Zaire info tidbit. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Writing from assumption
The one sentence paragraph:

"Compulsory voting may also lead to an increase in the amount of invalid ballot papers which are not marked according to the rules of voting (either through deliberate spoiling or returning a blank ballot) as a form of protest against mandatory voting, and also that there would be a large amount of resources expended on questioning and fining non-participants."

is clearly written as speculation, in a place without compulsory ballots. So, it either should be removed, or be rewritten by someone with direct knowledge of both ways. The matter is not hypothetical, but has been implemented and works well in many places. As far as the issues described go: yes, there are donkey votes, and they are no bad thing. No, no significant resources need be spent in enforcement -- unlike US drug laws.

It's well known what the outcome is where whole sections of the population are encouraged not to vote, and for many, many US citizens that has made that coutnry's "democracy" pretty farcical.

Compulsory voting in Venezuela
"Capítulo I: De la Condición de Elector Artículo 85º Todos los venezolanos mayores de dieciocho (18) años, no sujetos por sentencia definitivamente firme, a interdicción civil, ni a condena penal que lleve consigo inhabilitación política, tienen el derecho y están en el deber de votar en las elecciones que rige esta Ley para los poderes públicos que correspondan a su lugar de residencia." CNE Website. In order to have a conversation about the issue, please provide an alternative definition of compulsory voting with from reliable source, since other countries with laws and no punishment are also on the list like Turkey and Mexico. (Caracas1830 17:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC))
 * There is a compulsory voting law currently in effect Venezuela according to the defition of the word ("compulsory":required by law or a rule. Oxford American Dictionary) and it was not abandoned with the current Constitution. Artlcle 63 of the 1999 constitution says that "La ley garantizará el principio de la personalización del sufragio". This is the current "Ley Orgánica del Sufragio y Participación Política":

France
Never heard of compulsory voting in France. And I lived there for a while. Can anyone give a source for that??

In a randomly selected cirumscripition in Paris only 66,9% of the registered voters cast their ballot on the legistative elections of 2002 on 16th June 2002. (http://www.interieur.gouv.fr/sections/a_votre_service/resultats-elections/legis2002/075/circons01.html) A fact that is hardly compatible with the existence of compulsory voting.

Is compulsory voting only applicable to some special elections??

Revert regarding Australia
Regarding South Australia - Is State enrolment compulsory? - http://www.seo.sa.gov.au/apps/uploadedFiles/news/276/SEO_QA06_13feb06.pdf - "Initial (first time) enrolment for State elections is not compulsory, however, after having enrolled you must maintain your enrolment details and vote. It is compulsory to enrol for Federal elections once you turn 18." I have a citation therefore I disagree with the revert. Comments welcome. Timeshift 04:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a FAQ, not a peer-reviewed academic reference or a primary source (i.e. legislation). As the SA SEO do not maintain their roll (according to the National Library of Australia, only WA continue to do so - ), which is basically a SA extract of the federal roll for registered electors in South Australia, and the federal Electoral Acts have since 1911 stipulated compulsory enrolment. The only exceptions outlined by the Legal Information Access Centre for South Australia relate to local elections, which also applies to two other states (WA and Tasmania) - which notes in three different places that Federal and State elections prescribe compulsory enrolment and voting, despite a failed push by the SA Government in 1994 to overturn it. From 1984 onwards, enrolment was compulsory for all eligible electors in Australia. AEC In 1985, SA became the last state to adopt compulsory voting for its upper house. It's interesting that the AEC paper, which documents all states, mentions no exceptions for South Australia. The weight of evidence suggests that even if such a provision is missing from South Australian legislation (Electoral Act 1985) (which doesn't explain the 1994 efforts to overturn it), it is entirely irrelevant anyway as the Commonwealth via the AEC maintain the state roll, and it's compulsory to be on that. Orderinchaos 04:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Practically, yes, enrolment is indeed compulsory in South Australia. But the legal exception does remain, and it is possible that some older South Australians remain un-enrolled.--cj | talk 02:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added something with references to legislation and Anthony Green. Mark Hurd 17:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that, in New South Wales at least, voting is compulsory also at local council elections. This might need to be verified so I haven't edited the article. Alpheus (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Voting is compulsory at NSW local council elections - in my time I spoilt a few ballots for Parramatta council because I simply did not care. There was a by-election there a few years ago that was not well publicised so caused a fair stir because many people didn't realise it was on so incurred the fine (small $ but still $). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.210.35 (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the Australia banner should not be here since this is an international topic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.106.113 (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

TURKEY A COMPULSORY VOTING COUNTRY?
I live in Turkey and on 22nd of October we`ll have an election. But I am sure that no one will be enforced to vote. I personally know many people and friends who will not vote. Can some one correct me if I`m wrong?


 * Actually if you have a look at the CIA Factbook you`ll see that Turkey does not have a compulsory voting system. If no one objects I`ll erase Turkey out of the list of compulsory voting countries.85.105.3.205 13:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The same thing with Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.50.130.125 (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have an objection to the deletion of Turkey. According to the International IDEA publication, Turnkey has a compulsory voting system. http://www.idea.int/vt/compulsory_voting.cfm
 * The penalties might not have actually been imposed on illegitimate abstainers in Turkey. However, so long as voting is stipulated as a legal duty, we should regard it as a compulsory voting system by definition. I do not think that the CIA Factbook is reliable enough about compulsory voting. --Pochi II (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't vote for the last 10 years in Turkish elections, however never been fined. I know many people who never voted but never knew anyone who ever paid a fine for not voting. Turkey should be listed in countries where voting is compulsory but not enforced (as it is the case). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.246.138 (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Dutch text
Someone has added the following text, I think it is in Dutch.


 * Compulsatory voten in the veregenigde staten is niet als hier in Holland. Wij gaan dieper in berich t advesries van de stand[point.Nationaliteiten as in Canada aen the veregnifgde staten en de Antillen hebbenniet zoveer genug van de verenigde staten a;s

Please translate it or throw it away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AttishOculus (talk • contribs) 11:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not real Dutch. Looks like it has been mauled by some internet translation. Anyway it is not very interesting. 213.214.57.217 (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Hicham.vanborm

Luxembourg
I moved L. to the non-enforcing list because it's not enforced at all here. --Kloth (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Voice of sections on arguments for/against
The voice of the sections "Arguments in [favour of/against] compulsory voting" seems redundant to me. Rather say saying:

"A common argument for compulsory voting is to guarantee that the government represents a majority of the population, not only individuals who vote. This helps ensure that governments do not neglect sections of society that are less active politically."

should it not simply be an assertion? i.e.:

"The government in a compulsory voting jurisdiction respresents..." It would still be pretty clear that these are not accepted facts, but arguments for/against. Max Calf (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Peruvian argument?
Surely this is an argument for compulsory voting. If voting was not compulsory, presumably the guerrillas would have more of a reason to act violently to those who chose to endorse the legitimacy of the government that they oppose by exercising their freedom to vote, rather than simply following their obligation.

Or at the least, it is an argument against staining people's fingers with ink, in favour of simply crossing them of an electoral roll.

I vote that it is disingenuous and should get the axe. Max Calf (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Countries that do not enforce compulsory voting
It seems (to me, at least) that some editors are confusing the list of Countries that do not enforce compulsory voting as a list of Countries that do not do not have compulsory voting laws. The distinction of course, being that there are several countries that have laws in their books that compulsorily require all eligible citizens to vote in an election, but do not enforce these laws by imposing some form of punishment on those who fail to vote. The list in the article should be restricted to these countries (the ones that have the laws but do not enforce them) as opposed to just a list of countries that have no laws. My point is reinforced by the fact that the article mentions that there are 32 countries that have laws of which 19 enforce them, but together, the lists add up to 38 countries. Can someone confirm and/or correct this list (or at least let me know if in fact I am mistaken) Phloyd (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There also needs to be some kind of explanation of what a country that has, but does not enforce, compulsory voting is, in the actual article. Especially if Bolivia, for example, is to exist both in the list of countries that do not enforce and also used in the examples of enforcement.
 * Lordandmaker (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

In "Contemporary", can somebody tell me why there are only 14 countries listed under "Enforced", yet it is quoted as 19 in the general section? Similar complaint about unenforced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.110.125 (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

When is voting ever compulsory?
Shouldn't it be made 110% clear that voting is rarely if ever compulsory? What countries hold a gun to citizens heads forcing them to vote? Compulsory voting usually means compulsory attendance of a voting booth. If someone doesn't want to vote there is nothing making them. Timeshift (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Compulsory action does not means state terrorism. People are fined when they littering around. There is no gun to force people to litter at specified place. It is accepted to be compulsory not to litter. However, if there is completely no legal consequence, it is surely not compulsory. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for
My own experience as an Australian living in Republic of Ireland has shown me further benefits, although they may be for Australia only and not other countries. As Australia imposes fines for failing to vote, the governments have been compelled to ensure that as many people as possible will have access to vote. The upshot of this is that as a voter in Australia I can turn up to any polling booth in my area on election day which will always be a Saturday. If I'm going to be too far from my home electoral division I can turn up to any other polling station and cast an absentee vote. There's also postal voting which is widely advertised before the election. It's almost impossible to not have access to a polling booth on the day.

Contrast that with Ireland where you get a card that allows you entry to 1 polling booth only and elections are held on a Thursday. Also, from the time that the election is called you have about 2 weeks to register your new home if you've moved since the last election. Most people don't do this - it's almost like they see where they are registered as being where they will be identified with as home and the Irish are very connected to their home counties. The result is that many people, and especially young people, cannot get to a polling booth without considerable inconvenience and so they don't bother. To me it almost looks like discouraged sufferage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kersti (talk • contribs) 22:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

For info, I have deleted the last three paragraphs of the Arguments For section on the grounds that they presented contentious opinion as fact (e.g. that voting in fact *is* a 'civil duty' rather than a civil right). Obviously the purpose of the section is to present arguments, but the style of writing (which was very much that of a single-authored essay) was extremely subjective and it was not made clear that such claims were contentious. I've removed the paragraphs based on the 'countering systemic bias' project - they represented a 'liberal-democratic' worldview as though it were neutral or objective. They also added nothing of any significance to the section or the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.92.223 (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

IP User repeatedly adding Discrimination category
I don't believe this is a valid addition. I suspect it's someone trying to make some sort of a point, but I have no idea what. I've tried to communicate with the IP editor via Edit summaries and his Talk page, with no success. I will keep reverting until I see good reason to stop, treating this as vandalism. HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with the removal - the category seems to have nothing to do with the topic and is just someone expressing their POV. Orderinchaos 03:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination category
How is Compulsory voting discriminatory? It seems that there is a single user adamant on keeping the article in that category. Rabbitfang (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Clear that Compulsory voting is political discrimination. Please don't erase of this category because is certain. The countries with compulsory voting are highly dangerous. Jackie d. alarcón.
 * No, you are wrong. I am certain that your use of English is wrong here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Not, is certain, so that please keept Compulsory voting in the Category:Discrimination. In the Wikipedia in French, Spanish and Portuguese, Compulsory voting is in the category Discrimination. You are that are wrong, not me, in my country (Peru), there political discrimination. Jackie d. alarcón.
 * The discrimination categories were added to those pages by anonymous editors, like it was for this page for some time. The IP addresses were identical for the French and Portuguese versions (within a few hours of each other) and the Spanish wiki has a similar IP making the edits. In all cases, there was at least 1 time where the edit was reverted as vandalism. Also, the definition for discrimination at Wikitionary is "distinct treatment of an individual or group to their disadvantage". Compulsory voting does not meet this definition because the treatment of citizens as a whole is not distinct. If you continue to add Category:Discrimination to this article, you will continue to find yourself blocked with an indefinite block in your future. This edit is opposed by several Wikipedians and you are the only one supporting it. Rabbitfang 01:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Links to diffs: French Spanish Portuguese Rabbitfang 01:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course that it must of remains in discrimination because is certain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.233.233.167 (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Las categorías de la discriminación se han añadido a las páginas de los editores anónimos, como si fuera de esta página desde hace algún tiempo. Las direcciones IP son idénticos para las versiones en francés y portugués (en unas pocas horas de diferencia) y la wiki española tiene una IP similar hacer los cambios. En todos los casos, había por lo menos una vez en la edición se ha revertido el vandalismo. Además, la definición de la discriminación en el Wikitionary es el "tratamiento distinto de un individuo o grupo a su situación de desventaja". El voto obligatorio no cumple con esta definición, ya que el tratamiento de los ciudadanos en su conjunto no es distinto. Si continuamos agregando Category:Discrimination a este artículo, usted continuará encuentra bloqueada con un bloque de tiempo indefinido en el futuro. Esta edición es la oposición de varios wikipedistas y usted es el único que lo apoyan. Translated to Spanish by Google Translator. Rabbitfang 01:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Jackie, usted puede responder en español y voy a traducir al Inglés si lo desea. Jackie, you may respond in Spanish and I will translate them to English if you want. Rabbitfang 01:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Rabbitfang's right - by definition, something enforced on everybody cannot be discrimination. If it is illegal in a country for one group to vote that would be discriminatory. Orderinchaos 07:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Derecho Rabbitfang - algo, por definición, aplicada a todo el mundo no puede haber discriminación. Si es ilegal en el país por un grupo de votación que sería discriminatorio. Translated to Spanish using Google Translator. Comment by Orderinchaos 07:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC). Translated by Rabbitfang 07:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I can only agree; the addition of this category is nonsensical. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Claro que el voto obligatorio es discriminación política. Así que debe permanecer en la wikipedia en inglés, al igual que en otros idiomas como en francés, castellano y portugués. Jackie d. Alarcón
 * This is English Wikipedia. If you cannot post in English (AND learn to edit properly on Wikipedia), you will not achieve your goal. HiLo48 (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I roughly understand him to be saying it is already present on the article in French, Spanish and Portuguese. I looked on those three and it was edit warred aggressively by an IP range in February (unsuccessfully) then added later by the same IP in the 200. range on all three on 11 Apr 2011. This is not evidence of anything beyond that the checkers missed a disruptive edit, which happens all the time on the larger language encyclopaedias. Orderinchaos 17:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking that out. Useful information. I would never want to be seen as biased against users of other languages, and must confess my own inability to read such submissions (I really wish I could), but there are plenty of English speakers out there, and if none of them feel strongly enough to post supporting this matter, I don't see the need to pay it any heed at all in English Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that this is a single-purpose editor who's been warring the same change for several months in at least five languages (they also paid a visit to Swedish on 12 Apr 2011 under the 190. accounts they more typically use here on en) under a range of IP addresses and this editor account. Orderinchaos 17:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course that compulsory voting is political discrimination. So that don't erase of this category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.234.202.17 (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, guess what: WP:CONSENSUS says it does not stay. That trumps childish re-additions every week or so. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 22:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh no. He's back!
I just reverted a new addition of the discrimination category from a very similar IP address to the source of our earlier obsessive additions. I'm happy to keep watch and revert every time. I regard the additions as vandalism, even though they are probably not intended as such. I hope such reversion doesn't breach WP:3RR. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

India
Per this source quoted by the article, voting in India is not compulsory. Why then does the image show India as a country with compulsory voting? May please be amended, or I shall remove the picture. Thanks. --Tinpisa (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It was last updated back in July, so it just needs to be redone.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Map Colors
As a color-blind person, many of those map colors look the same to me. I have the most common variety, affecting ~6% of the male population. As a general rule, it's best to stay away from color schemes that differ primarily in the amount of red content. So for example, I have a lot of difficulty with blue vs. purple, or orange vs. green, or in this case red vs. other shades of red. Ohnoezitasploded (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Completely faulty map
The map (image) that goes with this page is riddled with errors. Most notably, India is coloured while there has never even been an attempt in India to make voting compulsory. Mexico has been coloured red (compulsory voting, enforced), when both the text of the page and independent sources (CIA fact file for instance) can confirm that compulsory voting is not enforced in Mexico. It is likely that these are not the only errors in the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.41.79.218 (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

What about Commonwealth of Independent States countries (former Soviet Union)?
Voting was also compulsory in the former Eastern Bloc nations - it's one of the reasons the Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact countries had regular voter turnout in excess of 98%. Unless you were excused because of illness (and even that might be suspect), you would be punished if you failed to vote. But neither the map nor the article mentions this.

Neither do we know from this article whether Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, etc., still have compulsory voting.

This is a good article but I suspect many more nations make voting compulsory than are listed. More research should be undertaken to thoroughly update the article.

FYI, notwithstanding historical practice in some jurisdictions that became part of the future USA, compulsory voting is unconstitutional in the United States - because the fundamental right to vote includes the right to not vote (because the act of casting a ballot is a form of speech, and the fundamental right to free speech includes the fundamental right to not speak). Fundamental rights can be legally infringed if there is a compelling state interest ("state" in the generic sense) for doing so; but there isn't in this case.

The problem with saying that government has a compelling interest in making sure its eligible citizens vote is that, unless you have a "None of the Above" option on the ballot for every office; and an "Abstain" option for every ballot measure; the government would be forcing people to vote on something they did not necessarily want to vote on. And even if you did include all those extra options on a ballot (which would be cost prohibitive, for a start), you would still be violating the constitutional right to not speak by forcing people to speak.

When I have the chance to look up the Supreme Court case law citations, I will add an appropriate section to the article explaining why compulsory voting is not constitutionally possible in the United States.

76.126.3.38 (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

'compelled speech'
I did google search for 'compelled speech'. I quickly scanned the results. it seems that US caselaw apprently pertains to the goverment compelling something called "commercial speech".

btw, speech act seems like an innapropriate link to me, regarding the notion of "compelled speech". I guess someone could add a section @ speech act regarding "compelled speech" vis a vis freedom of speech.

if the notion of "compelled speech" is explored in more depth, on or off wikipedia then let's include it or use it for citation! thx. skakEL 19:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Arguments Against
It would be nice to also see some arguments against compulsory voting in the article. You know, NPOV and all that.
 * Ditto. For anyone who has the time. -- Lenoxus 22:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

We need arguments against!!!
 * Are there any? :D --Lord Snoeckx 19:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can think of a few, (forcing people to make a choice without adequate knowledge of the subject to make an informed decision, difficulty of getting people to polling places in poorer or remote areas, forcing people to choose between two equally undesirable candidates, etc.) but that would constitute original research unless somebody could find some source for that. --Lurlock 19:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that as it now stands the article seems very biased because it doesn't acknowledge any arguments against compulsory voting. (Note that even a partisan tract needs to acknowledge counter arguments if it intends to be at all persuasive.) If Lurlock's arguments against compulsory voting would "constitute original research", how is it that the arguments in favor of compulsory voting listed in this article as it now stands do not "constitute original research"? Specifically whose arguments are they? TheScotch 07:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a couple of arguments against. Hopefully someone who has given the subject more thought will flesh this out. CenozoicEra 21:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have also added arguments deleted by vandal 210.18.194.34 on 18:53, 6 September 2006. Prior to this, there were arguments against. CenozoicEra 04:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You can certainly get a lot more voters that have no idea what they're voting for. A deceptively-written proposition could be voted in by those that aren't interested and just vote what sounds good. It's a little different perspective in that it harms society instead of going against the citizen's wishes. 205.154.237.150 (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Australian Electoral Commission gives arguments both for and against. I could see if they can be included. Robauz (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding the ip comment above on propositions It may be worth mentionaing something about referendums in australia along the lines of people have to vote therefore those who are not interested or informed about the issue being voted on then could simply vote no in presevation of the status quo.

Digmores (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Both the Arguments For and the Arguments Against sections contain what I think are an annoying number of [citation needed] brackets for what are points of argumentation, or descriptions of argumentation not sensibly requiring of citation or specific reference at all? Suggest editors review what seriously is or is not requiring of citation in these sections.(85.179.2.77 (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC))

Misrepresentation of Murray Rothbard
Currently the article has the paragraph:
 * Another group opposed to compulsory voting are principled nonvoters. They believe that the political process is inherently corrupt and violent, and prefer to minimize their personal involvement with it. If one adheres to Murray Rothbard's view of the state as a "gang of thieves writ large" then compulsory voting is a form of conscription into the largest mob with the biggest guns.

This does not reflect Rothbard's personal view or what he espoused. In this (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard103.html) interview with him, we can see that he does oppose voting in principle.
 * On the other hand, I don't think voting is a real problem. I don't think it's immoral to vote, in contrast to the anti-voting people. -Rothbard

That paragraph could perhaps be re-worded too. Paulish (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Devil in the details
I've thought a lot about this subject since I live in a country with compulsory voting. I think there is a detail that is often overlooked. My country doesn't enforce compulsory voting. They only enforce you to GO vote. Once you're there, you can not vote (by "voting" in blank for example). Your right to forego voting is maintained. You do have to GO vote. I would think this applies to all countries in the enforced "voting" list.186.204.148.208 (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Likely copyvio
This copy of a cited paper from Jstor appears to comply with some of the copyright conditions but I'm hesitant to link to it, per content guideline. Do others agree?

Cyprus
The map colours Cyprus, and this EU parliament page also says so, but it isn't mentioned in our prose. CMD (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Number of compulsory countries?
The section "Present day" says:
 * As of August 2013, 22 countries were recorded as having compulsory voting.[1] Of these, only 10 countries (and one Swiss canton) enforce it.

The subsection "Enforced" says:
 * These are the 11 countries that enforce compulsory voting:

The section then contains 13 countries (plus the canton).... which is the correct figure... 10, 11 or 13?

Regards, 198.102.219.144 (talk) 10:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the heads up. I've just gone through the list and can only find 11 confirmed countries, plus the canton. I've updated the section, but there are editors here who probably have a better working knowledge of more recent changes. Hopefully, someone else will be able to clear this and the unenforced compulsory voting list up. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

North Korea removed from compulsory vote list
I've removed North Korea from the compulsory vote list simply because, as it is used there, it doesn't adhere to the conventions of voting is so-called Representative Democracies. If the system of 'compulsory' voting implemented there is worth discussing in the content of the article, it should be discussed as a separate issue. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

How does it work in practice ?
One thing which isint explained in the article is what (if any) excuses are accepted for failure to vote under such arrangements. If one was ill on polling day would it be accepted as an excuse and if so what evidence would they need to provide in support of this. What about bereavement/family emergency/being abroad/etc ?

What happens to people who refuse to vote AND refuse to pay any resultant fines ? Do the authorities actually spend time/money chasing (and even locking) such people up ?

And finally how often do people chased up for failure to vote turn out not to have done so on account of being dead ?? 90.218.166.9 (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting questions. In Argentina you can avoid go voting if you are further than 500 kilometers from the polling station. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Compulsory voting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110217024646/http://aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/voting/index.htm to http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/voting/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction on Greece's status
The text section indicates that in Greece compulsory voting is in place but not enforced, while the header map indicates that it is in place and enforced. Which is it, and can these two article components be made consistent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atmilios (talk • contribs) 00:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook

 * As of August 2013, 11 democracies — about 5% of all United Nations members — enforce compulsory voting out of 22 countries listed worldwide as having a compulsory voting system.

The source is https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2123.html. I accessed it today, and noticed the total of countries worldwide with compulsory voting is 21 now, and not 22. But I cannot check how many of them enforce or not the voting. Doesn't the CIA Factbook have this info?--200.223.199.146 (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Compulsory voting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090612191446/http://www.idea.int/vt/compulsory_voting.cfm to http://www.idea.int/vt/compulsory_voting.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070324043856/http://www.tc.gob.pe/legconperu/constitucion.html to http://www.tc.gob.pe/legconperu/constitucion.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090612191446/http://www.idea.int/vt/compulsory_voting.cfm to http://www.idea.int/vt/compulsory_voting.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Nullify
Secret voting nullifies compulsory voting. A voter can easily spoil his vote, if it is secret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:FCF6:4801:DDEC:AF34:7F4A:D06 (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * And that's precisely what happens here in Australia, where we have compulsory voting. It's not a high proportion of votes, and not generally seen as a problem. Many people are happy to turn up to the polling place simply to buy their democracy sausage. HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Is the map incorrect re egypt and libya?
I couldnt find any evidence that in Egypt and Libyan compulsory voting is for men only as it states on the map. Unless someone can show evidence to the contrary, i guess the map should be deleted unless someone can make a new one?

//////// Hey whoever wrote this,

Great point made. Whoever made the map totally sucks at making maps. I'll upload a new one soon - there is no way that we should look at "compulsory voting" in unfree or totalitarian states.

Next time, please sign off your message with four tildes! <4

Kobentori (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

CIA World factbook not accessible through link
The link to the CIA World Factbook is no longer valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.60.213 (talk) 07:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

"Arguments For" and "Arguments Against" sections are presented in a blatantly biased manner
"Arguments Against" is divided into what can and cannot be addressed with policy, with almost all of it being able to be addressed by policy, implicitly suggesting that there is little or no reason to hold this stance. However, the "Arguments For" section is not presented in a similar way, avoiding the acknowledgement that many of these arguments can also be satisfied through other policy and creating a clear "advantage" for this stance.

In order to be objective and unbiased in presentation, both sections need to be presented in the same way: either divided by what can and cannot be addressed in other ways through policy, as the "against" section is, or divided simply by the topic of the argument, as the "for" section is. If an idea is strong enough to be worth considering, then it should be able to be presented fairly, on an even playing field, without concern. 2603:6010:E200:1CE9:6554:33BD:D45B:CD36 (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)