Compulsory voting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Compulsory voting, enforced.
Compulsory voting, not enforced.
Compulsory voting, enforced (only men).
Compulsory voting, not enforced (only men).
Historical: the country had compulsory voting in the past.

Compulsory voting are laws which require voters to register to vote, to attend a polling place on voting day (or some permitted alternative method of voting) and to vote in elections. If an eligible voter fails to attend a polling place, or lodge a postal vote, he or she may be subject to a penalty such as fines or community service. As of August 2013, 22 countries, including 12 Latin American countries, have compulsory voting laws, and 11 of these 22 countries enforce these laws in practice.[1]


Athenian democracy held that it was every citizen's duty to participate in decision making, but attendance at the assembly was voluntary. Sometimes there was some form of social opprobrium to those not participating. For example, Aristophanes's comedy Acharnians 17–22, in the 5th century BC, shows public slaves herding citizens from the agora into the assembly meeting place (pnyx) with a red-stained rope. Those with red on their clothes were fined.[2] This usually happened if fewer than 6,000 people were in attendance, and more were needed for the assembly to continue.[3]

Arguments for[edit]

Supporters of compulsory voting generally look upon voter participation as a civic duty, similar to taxation, jury duty, compulsory education or military service; one of the "duties to community" mentioned in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[4] They believe that, by introducing an obligation to vote, it helps to overcome the occasional inconvenience that voting imposes on an individual in order to produce governments with more stability, legitimacy and a genuine mandate to govern, which in turn benefits that individual even if their preferred candidate or party is not elected to power. The idea that compulsory voting results in a higher degree of political legitimacy is based on it resulting in high voter turnout.[5] The victorious candidate therefore represents a majority of the population, not just of the politically motivated individuals who would vote without compulsion.[6]

Supporters of compulsory voting also argue that voting addresses the paradox of voting, which is that for a rational, self-interested voter, the costs of voting will normally exceed the expected benefits. The paradox disproportionately affects the socially disadvantaged, for whom the costs of voting tend to be greater. Australian academic and supporter of compulsory voting, Lisa Hill, has argued that a prisoner's dilemma situation arises under voluntary systems for marginalised citizens: it seems rational for them to abstain from voting, under the assumption that others in their situation are also doing so, in order to conserve their limited resources. However, since these are the people who are in most need of political representation, this decision is also irrational. Hill argues that the introduction of compulsory voting removes this dilemma.[7]

In a similar way, supporters of compulsory voting will argue that the secret ballot is designed to prevent interference with the votes actually cast, compelling voters to the polls for an election removes interference with accessing a polling place, reducing the impact that external factors such as the weather, transport, or restrictive employers might have. If everybody must vote, restrictions on voting are identified and steps are taken to remove them. If voters do not want to support any of the given candidates, they may cast spoilt votes or blank votes. According to compulsory voting supporters, this is preferred to not voting at all because it ensures there is no possibility that the person has been intimidated or prevented from voting should they wish.[citation needed] In certain jurisdictions, voters have the option to vote none of the above if they do not support any of the candidates to indicate clear dissatisfaction with the candidate list rather than simple apathy at the whole process.

Supporters also argue that a benefit of the large turnout produced by compulsory voting makes it more difficult for extremist or special interest groups to get themselves into power or to influence mainstream candidates. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for lobby groups to motivate a small section of the people to the polls and influence the outcome of the political process.[citation needed] The outcome of an election where voting is compulsory reflects more of the will of the people (Who do I want to lead the country?) rather than reflecting who was more able to convince people to take time out of their day to cast a vote (Do I even want to vote today?).

Other perceived advantages to compulsory voting are the stimulation of broader interest politics, as a sort of civil education and political stimulation, which creates a better informed population, although no studies have been undertaken to demonstrate that the populations of Belgium or Australia for instance, where compulsory voting has long existed, are better informed and more politically aware than the populations of New Zealand, France, Canada or the Scandinavian countries, where voting has never been compulsory. It is also argued that since campaign funds are not needed to goad voters to the polls, the role of money in politics decreases. With non-compulsory voting, the ability of a political machine to get out the vote of its supporters may influence the outcome. High levels of participation decreases the risk of political instability created by crises or charismatic but sectionally focused demagogues.[6]

A 2005 Inter-American Development Bank working paper purported to show that there was a correlation between compulsory voting, when enforced strictly, and improved income distribution, as measured by the Gini coefficient and the bottom income quintiles of the population.[8] However, a more recent Conference Board of Canada study on World income inequality — also relying on the Gini index — shows that income inequality is lowest in the Scandinavian countries, where compulsory voting has never existed, while Australia, and to a lesser extent Belgium, which strictly enforces their compulsory voting legislation, have a higher income inequality level than a number of other Western countries, such as Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands, were compulsory voting does not exist.[9]

Monash University political scientist Waleed Aly argues that whether compulsory voting favors the right or the left is besides the point, because the most beneficial aspect of compulsory voting is that it will improve the caliber of individuals who run for office and the quality of the decisions that they make: "In a compulsory election, it does not pay to energize your base to the exclusion of all other voters. Since elections cannot be determined by turnout, they are decided by swing voters and won in the center... That is one reason Australia’s version of the far right lacks anything like the power of its European or American counterparts. Australia has had some bad governments, but it hasn’t had any truly extreme ones and it isn’t nearly as vulnerable to demagogues."[10]

Arguments against[edit]

Voting may be seen as a civic right rather than a civic duty. While citizens may exercise their civil rights (free speech, right to an attorney, etc.) they are not compelled to. Furthermore, compulsory voting may infringe other rights. For example, most Christadelphians believe that they should not participate in political events. Forcing them to vote ostensibly denies them their freedom of religious practice. Jehovah's Witnesses view voting as a personal decision to be made based on each one's conscience and understanding of their responsibility to God and to the State. In lands where voting is compulsory, Witnesses do not vote, while taking care to preserve neutrality and not compromising their faith.[11] The law can also allow people to give a valid reason for why they did not vote.

Similarly, compulsory voting may be seen as an infringement of Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of political opinion and thus the right of citizens to believe in a political system other than a democratic one, such as an absolute monarchy. However, it may also be argued that citizens may legitimately be required to vote since the right to believe in a different political system does not conflict with the obligation to conform with legal requirements of the system in place.[citation needed]

Another argument against compulsory voting, prevalent among legal scholars in the United States, is that it is essentially a compelled speech act, which violates freedom of speech because the freedom to speak necessarily includes the freedom not to speak.[12] Allowing voters to turn in a blank ballot overcomes this objection.

Some do not support the idea of voters being compelled to vote for candidates they have no interest in or knowledge of. Others may be well-informed, but have no preference for any particular candidate, or may have no wish to give support to the incumbent political system. In compulsory voting areas, such people often vote at random simply to fulfill legal requirements: the so-called donkey vote may account for 1–2% of votes in these systems[citation needed], which has the potential to change the result in close races. (Robson rotation can be used to distribute the donkey vote equally among all candidates, however.) Similarly, citizens may vote with a complete absence of knowledge of any of the candidates or deliberately skew their ballot to slow the polling process and disrupt the election, or vote for frivolous or jokey candidates. Such arguments are frequently aired in Brazil, where opposition to compulsory voting has increased from 43% in 2008 to 61% in 2014 and where two out of ten voters have abstained from voting in recent elections.[13]

The Australian system of preferential voting means a person's vote usually ends up favouring one of the two main political parties, even though the voter may not wish to advantage either. Former Australian opposition leader Mark Latham urged Australians to lodge blank votes for the 2010 election. He stated the government should not force citizens to vote or threaten them with a fine.[14] At the 2013 federal election, despite the threat of a non-voting fine of up to $170,[15][full citation needed] there was a turnout of only 92%,[16] of whom 6% lodged either informal or blank ballot papers.[17] In the corresponding Senate election, conducted under a single transferable vote system of proportional representation, and contested by over 50 groups,[18] legitimate manipulation of group voting tickets and the single transferable vote resulted in the election to the Senate of Ricky Muir, from the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party, who had received only 0.5% of first-preference support.[19] This exploitation of the system was alleged to undermine the entitlement of voters "to be able to make real choices, not forced ones—and to know who they really are voting for."[20] As of February 2016, however, the single transferable vote system has been amended to abolish group voting tickets.[21] As a result of these reforms, it is now much less likely that a candidate with such a minuscule primary vote as Muir's in 2013 could win election to the Senate.


A study of a Swiss canton where compulsory voting was enforced found that compulsory voting significantly increased electoral support for leftist policy positions in referendums by up to 20 percentage points.[22] Another study found that the effects of universal turnout in the United States would likely be small in national elections, but that universal turnout could matter in close elections, such as the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004.[23] In the United States, Democrats would most likely fare better under universal voting (as nonvoters are generally more Democratic) but due to the dearth of close races in the United States, universal voting would change "very few election outcomes."[24] Research on compulsory voting in Australia found that it increased the vote shares and seat shares of the Australian Labor Party by 7 to 10 percentage points and led to greater pension spending at the national level.[25] While [weakly enforced] compulsory voting in Austria increased overall turnout by roughly 10 percentage points, there is "no evidence that this change in turnout affected government spending patterns (in levels or composition) or electoral outcomes."[26] A 2016 study finds that compulsory voting reduces the gender gap in electoral engagement in several ways.[27] A 2016 study of the Netherlands found that the abolition of compulsory voting increased the vote share of Dutch social democratic parties while reducing the vote share of "minor and extreme parties".[28]

Research suggests that higher rates of voter turnout lead to higher top tax rates.[29]

Current use by countries[edit]

As of August 2013, 22 countries were recorded as having compulsory voting.[1] Of these, only 10 countries (additionally one Swiss canton and one Indian state) enforce it. Of the 30 member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 10 had forms of compulsory voting.[30]


These are the countries and sub-national entities that enforce compulsory voting:

  • Argentina – Introduced in 1912.[31] Compulsory for citizens between 18 and 70 years old, non-compulsory for those older than 70 and between 16 and 18. (However, in primaries, citizens under 70 may refuse to vote, if they formally express their decision to the electoral authorities, at least 48 hours before the election. This is valid only for the subsequent primary, and needs to be repeated each time the voter wishes not to participate.)
  • Australia – Introduced in 1924.[31] Compulsory for federal and state elections for citizens aged 18 and above. The requirement is for the person to enroll, attend a polling station and have their name marked off the electoral roll as attending, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. The act does not explicitly state that a choice must be made, it only states that the ballot paper be 'marked'. According to the act how a person marks the paper is completely up to the individual. In some states, local council elections are also compulsory.[32] At the 2010 Tasmanian state election, with a turnout of 335,353 voters, about 6,000 people were fined $26 for not voting, and about 2,000 paid the fine.[33] A postal vote is available for those for whom it is difficult to attend a polling station. Early, or pre-poll, voting at an early voting centre is also available for those who might find it difficult to get to a polling station on election day.[34]
  • Belgium – Introduced in 1894.[35] Every citizen from age 18 has to present themselves in a polling station, legal sanctions still exist, but only the sanctions for absent appointed polling station staff have been enforced by prosecutors since 2003.[36][37]
  • Brazil[38] – Compulsory for literate citizens between 18 and 70 years old. Non-compulsory for Brazilians aged 16–17 or over 70 or illiterate citizens of any age. A justification form for not voting can be filled at election centers and post offices.
  • Cyprus – Introduced in 1960.[31]
  • Ecuador – Introduced in 1936.[31] Compulsory for citizens between 18 and 65 years old; non-compulsory for citizens aged 16–18, illiterate people, and those older than 65.
  • Indian state Gujarat passed a bill by legislative assembly in 2009 and later again in 2011 with some modifications, which was approved by the Governor of Gujarat in November 2014, making voting compulsory in local civic body elections and a punishment for not voting.[39] The Government of Gujarat chose not to notify the law or enforce it initially, citing legal implications and difficulty in enforcement.[40] But later in June 2015, the government decided to notify and enforce the law.[41]
  • Liechtenstein
  • Luxembourg – Compulsory for national citizens between the age of 18 and 75, non-compulsory for national citizens older than 75 and for residents with foreign nationality (for the latter in local elections only).[42]
  • North Korea – Everyone over age 17 is required to vote. However, only one candidate appears on the ballot. Voting is designed to track who is and isn't in the country. Dissenting votes are possible but lead to repercussions for voters.[43]
  • Nauru – Introduced in 1965.[31]
  • Peru[44] – Introduced in 1933.[31] Compulsory for citizens between 18 and 70 years old, non-compulsory for those older than 70.
  • Singapore – Compulsory for citizens above 21 years old as of the date of the last electoral roll revision. For example, the 2015 election has the cut-off date on 1 July 2015.
  • Uruguay – Introduced in 1934, but not put into practice until 1970.[31]
  • Schaffhausen canton in Switzerland. Compulsory voting has never existed at the national level in Switzerland. It has been introduced in several cantons starting in the late 19th century but by 1974, it has been abolished everywhere except in Schaffhausen.[31]

Not enforced[edit]

Countries that have compulsory voting by law but do not enforce it:

Past use by countries[edit]

  • Austria - Introduced in 1924 and exercised during the 1925 presidential elections.
  • Chile - Removed from the Constitution and replaced with voluntary voting in 2009; voluntary voting was regulated and put into practice in 2012; all eligible citizens aged 17 and over are automatically enrolled (only those over 18 on election day may vote; although the act of voting itself is voluntary, polling officer duties are not if chosen by a commission for the job).[47]
  • Fiji - Abolished in 2014.[48]
  • Italy - 1945-1993. Only symbolic sanctions (publication of lists of non-voters and mention in police certificates that the person had failed to vote, respectively for one month and five years after the election).
  • Netherlands - Introduced in 1917 along with universal suffrage, abolished in 1967.
  • Portugal - Portuguese constitutional referendum, 1933, not enforced.
  • Spain - 1907–1923, but not enforced.
  • Switzerland - Widespread among the country's 26 cantons in the 19th century but progressively abandoned since then with only Schaffhausen still retaining it.[49]
  • US State of Georgia - By Article XII of the 1777 Constitution[50] This provision was omitted from the revised Georgia constitution of 1789.[51]
  • Venezuela - Removed in 1993.[52]

Measures to encourage voting[edit]

Although voting in a country may be compulsory, penalties for failing to vote are not always strictly enforced. In Australia[53] and Brazil,[citation needed] providing a legitimate reason for not voting (such as illness) is accepted. In Argentina, those who were ill on voting day are excused by requesting a doctor to prove their condition; those over 500 km (310 mi) away from their voting place are also excused by asking for a certificate at a police station near where they are.[54] Belgian voters can vote in an embassy if they are abroad or can empower another voter to cast the vote in their name; the voter must give a "permission to vote" and carry a copy of the eID card and their own on the actual elections.[citation needed]

States that sanction nonvoters with fines generally impose small or nominal penalties. However, penalties for failing to vote are not limited to fines and legal sanctions. Belgian voters who repeatedly fail to vote in elections may be subject to disenfranchisement. Singapore voters who fail to vote in a general election or presidential election will be subjected to disenfranchisement until a valid reason is given or a fine is paid. Goods and services provided by public offices may be denied to those failing to vote in Peru and Greece. In Brazil, people who fail to vote in an election are barred from obtaining a passport and subject to other restrictions until settling their situation before an electoral court or after they have voted in the two most recent elections. If a Bolivian voter fails to participate in an election, the person may be denied withdrawal of the salary from the bank for three months.[55][56]

A postal vote may be available for those for whom it is difficult to attend a polling station.

See also[edit]


  1. ^ a b World Factbook: Suffrage at Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved 16 August 2013
  2. ^ Malkopoulou, Anthoula (2015). The History of Compulsory Voting in Europe: Democracy's Duty? London: Routledge, pp.52-54
  3. ^ Ibid. pp.49-52
  4. ^ [1] Archived February 17, 2011, at the Wayback Machine.
  5. ^ Levine, Jonathan The Case for Compulsory Voting, The National Interest 2 November 2012
  6. ^ a b Lijphart, Arend (1997) "Unequal Participation: Democracy's Unresolved Dilemma", The American Political Science Review 91(1): 8–11, (Subscription required for full access.)
  7. ^ Hill, L 2002 ‘On the reasonableness of compelling citizens to ‘vote’: The Australian case’, Political Studies, vol. 50, no. 1, pp.88-89
  8. ^ Chong, Alberto and Olivera, Mauricio, "On Compulsory Voting and Income Inequality in a Cross-Section of Countries", Inter-American Development Bank Working Paper, May 2005.
  9. ^ Income Inequality, mid-1990s and late 2000s table.
  10. ^ Aly, Waleed (2017-01-19). "Voting Should Be Mandatory". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-01-20. 
  11. ^ "The Watchtower". November 1, 1999. pp. 28–29. As to whether they will personally vote for someone running in an election, each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses makes a decision based on his Bible-trained conscience and an understanding of his responsibility to God and to the State...In view of the Scriptural principles outlined above, in many lands Jehovah’s Witnesses make a personal decision to stay politically neutral in elections, and their freedom to make that decision is supported by the law of the land. What, though, if the law requires citizens to vote? In such a case, each Witness is responsible to make a conscientious, a Bible-based decision. If someone decides to go to the polling booth, that is his decision. What he does in the polling booth is between him and his Creator...There may be people who are stumbled when they observe that during an election in their country, some Witnesses of Jehovah go to the polling booth and others do not. They may say, ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses are not consistent.’ People should recognize, though, that in matters of individual conscience such as this, each Christian has to make his own decision before Jehovah God.—Romans 14:12. Whatever personal decisions Jehovah’s Witnesses make in the face of different situations, they take care to preserve their Christian neutrality and freeness of speech. In all things, they rely on Jehovah God to strengthen them, give them wisdom, and help them avoid compromising their faith in any way. Thus they show confidence in the words of the psalmist: “You are my crag and my stronghold; and for the sake of your name you will lead me and conduct me.”—Psalm 31:3. 
  12. ^ Note, The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States, 121 Harv. L. Rev. 591, 601–603 (2007). Harvard is one of several law schools at which students may submit articles for publication in the school's law review but only anonymously in the form of "Notes" (with a capital "N").
  13. ^
  14. ^ "Latham at Large". Channel Nine. 12 August 2010. Retrieved 2011-10-04. 
  15. ^ What happens if I do not vote? at Australian Electoral Commission
  16. ^ Turnout by State at Australian Electoral Commission
  17. ^ Informal Votes by State at Australian Electoral Commission
  18. ^ First Preferences by Group at Australian Electoral Commission
  19. ^
  20. ^ Colebatch, Tim Bringing a barnyard of crossbenchers to heel The Age, Melbourne, 10 September 2013
  21. ^ Morey, Stephen Senate voting changes pass – so how do we elect the upper house now? in The Conversation, 18 March 2016
  22. ^ Bechtel, Michael M.; Hangartner, Dominik; Schmid, Lukas (2015-10-01). "Does Compulsory Voting Increase Support for Leftist Policy?". American Journal of Political Science. 60: 752–767. doi:10.1111/ajps.12224. ISSN 1540-5907. 
  23. ^ Sides, John; Schickler, Eric; Citrin, Jack (2008-09-01). "If Everyone Had Voted, Would Bubba and Dubya Have Won?". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 38 (3): 521–539. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5705.2008.02659.x. ISSN 1741-5705. 
  24. ^ Citrin, Jack; Schickler, Eric; Sides, John (2003-01-01). "What if Everyone Voted? Simulating the Impact of Increased Turnout in Senate Elections". American Journal of Political Science. 47 (1): 75–90. doi:10.1111/1540-5907.00006. ISSN 1540-5907. 
  25. ^ Fowler, Anthony (2011-04-23). "Electoral and Policy Consequences of Voter Turnout: Evidence from Compulsory Voting in Australia". SSRN Electronic Journal. Rochester, NY. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1816649. SSRN 1816649Freely accessible. 
  26. ^ Hoffman, Mitchell; León, Gianmarco; Lombardi, María. "Compulsory voting, turnout, and government spending: Evidence from Austria". Journal of Public Economics. 145: 103–115. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.10.002. 
  27. ^ Córdova, Abby; Rangel, Gabriela (2016-06-20). "Addressing the Gender Gap The Effect of Compulsory Voting on Women's Electoral Engagement". Comparative Political Studies: 0010414016655537. doi:10.1177/0010414016655537. ISSN 0010-4140. 
  28. ^ Miller, Peter; Dassonneville, Ruth (2016-12-01). "High turnout in the Low Countries: Partisan effects of the abolition of compulsory voting in the Netherlands". Electoral Studies. 44: 132–143. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2016.07.009. 
  29. ^ "Turning Out for Redistribution: The Effect of Voter Turnout on Top Marginal Tax Rates.". 
  30. ^ Evans, Tim. Compulsory Voting in Australia, Australian Electoral Commission. Retrieved on 2007-01-01.
  31. ^ a b c d e f g h "Compulsory Voting". IDEA. 21 August 2014. Retrieved 19 September 2014. 
  32. ^ Australian Electoral Commission Site On Rules Governing Compulsory Voting In Federal and State Elections
  33. ^ Tasmanian political leaders face off in televised debate 2014-02-27
  34. ^ "Ways to vote". Australian Electoral Commission. Retrieved 2016-03-02. 
  35. ^ Belgian constitution (in dutch)
  36. ^ Niet-stemmers riskeren geen straf (in Dutch) De Morgen 06/06/2009
  37. ^
  38. ^ Timothy J. Power: Compulsory for Whom? Mandatory Voting and Electoral Participation in Brazil, 1986–2006, in: Journal of Politics in Latin America. S. 97–122
  39. ^ "Gujarat first state to make voting must in local body elections". The Times of India. 10 November 2014. Retrieved 12 November 2014. 
  40. ^ Dave, Kapil (12 November 2014). "Gujarat govt gets cold feet after making voting compulsory in civic body poll". The Times of India. Retrieved 12 November 2014. 
  41. ^ "Gujarat to introduce compulsory voting in upcoming local bodies polls". Firstpost. 2015-06-18. Retrieved 2015-06-19. 
  42. ^ Loi électorale du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg
  43. ^ "The Economist explains: How North Korea's elections work". The Economist. 5 May 2014. Retrieved 6 May 2015. 
  44. ^ "Constitucion Política Del Perú". Retrieved 2011-10-04. 
  45. ^
  46. ^
  47. ^ Compulsory voting eliminated in Chile Blog post at, 21 December 2011
  48. ^
  49. ^
  50. ^ "Constitution of Georgia, 5 February 1777". The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. Retrieved 2007-12-07. 
  51. ^
  52. ^ Elliot Frankal (2005-07-04). "Compulsory voting around the world | Politics |". London: Retrieved 2011-10-04. 
  53. ^ "Electoral Backgrounder: Compulsory Voting" (PDF). September 2014. Retrieved 23 May 2015. 
  54. ^ "Elecciones 2015: toda la información" (in Spanish). Télam. 11 March 2015. Retrieved 23 May 2015. 
  55. ^
  56. ^ "Compulsory voting around the world", The Guardian, 4 July 2005

External links[edit]