The institution of election silence as well as its scope has been a subject of debates and controversies for years. Supporters of election silence underline its moderating and anticoaxing character. The opponents point to inveterate breaching of its rules, particularly on the Internet. For all that, the institution of election silence serves some political and social purposes and imperfections of its execution do not have to perforce undermine its merits. The aim of the present paper is to analyse legal solutions concerning election silence that have been implemented around the world and that constitute sundry models of this institution. Comparing them allows for identifying universal solutions and areas worth reforming.