argument top image

Should voting in elections be mandatory?
Back to question

Many people will pay a fine over having to vote

Introducing a fine for not voting does not actually increase voting rates.
< (3 of 3)

The Argument

Mandatory voting as a solution to voter apathy and disenfranchisement is overstated and dependent on the sanctions that are introduced to deal with voter abstentions. In Latin America, several countries that have introduced mandatory voting do not enforce compulsory rules for senior citizens, this leads to a drop in turnout rates amongst the elderly. While in Australia, where compulsory voting is enforced through fines for abstention, 1.5 million people opted not to vote in the most recent general election, incurring $30 million in fines. [1]

Counter arguments

Despite lacks enforcement in some countries, the introduction of mandatory voting with financial penalities for abstention has led to significantly higher turnouts in elections. In Australia, where voting has been compulsory since 1924, turnout has not dipped below 90% of the electorate.


[P1] When there is mandatory voting, it does not mean everyone will actually vote. [P2] There is no point implementing mandatory voting.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Mandatory voting has been shown to increase turnout rates significantly.


This page was last edited on Monday, 9 Mar 2020 at 10:30 UTC

Explore related arguments