Talk:Compulsory voting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.


[edit] Compulsory voting in Venezuela

  • 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":

"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))


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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??


[edit] 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 - [1]), 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. [2] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)