This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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.
"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))
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??
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)
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 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?
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)
Someone has added the following text, I think it is in Dutch.
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
I moved L. to the non-enforcing list because it's not enforced at all here. --Kloth (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
I can only agree; the addition of this category is nonsensical. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:22, 16 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It would be nice to also see some arguments against compulsory voting in the article. You know, NPOV and all that.
We need arguments against!!!
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)
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)
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))
Currently the article has the paragraph:
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.
That paragraph could perhaps be re-worded too. Paulish (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
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?
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)
The section "Present day" says:
The subsection "Enforced" says:
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)
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Compulsory voting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)