Essentially, external voting is geared towards increasing political participation and thereby contributing to the legitimacy and accountability of democratic governments. Problematic as it can be from both the practical and the theoretical points of view, the right to an external vote can also be an essential part of the citizen’s political rights; but the question of external voting does raise its own series of issues surrounding participation that need to be addressed.
To date, there has been far less focus on the levels of participation among external voters than on levels of voter participation in-country.
In most cases where external voting is permitted, external voters account for only a relatively small proportion of overall turnout. Nonetheless, an external voting population may have a considerable impact on election results. Examples include Italy’s 2006 legislative elections—the first held in which external voting was permitted. The election outcome was unknown until all the external votes were counted, giving this relatively small group considerable political impact due to the fact that the electoral system allows a bonus for the party or coalition with the highest number of votes. In some cases external votes have tipped the scales in an election; and they are often counted last. This effect may or may not be more pronounced in countries that have experienced massive population movements linked to conflict or the migration of labour. The 2004 elections in Afghanistan saw 10 per cent of the total electorate made up of external electors in Pakistan and Iran, due in part to extensive voter education campaigns and great interest in the country’s first-ever democratic elections. Another recent example of a country with a large population of eligible voters residing outside the national borders that could have potential impact on the outcome of elections is that of Iraq. Both Afghanistan and Iraq conducted large-scale external voting processes and voter education campaigns in their past elections. One can only guess what the reactions would have been among the many external residents if external voting had not been organized for these groups. Turnout in the Iraqi January 2005 election was high (265,000 registered voters, although higher registration rates had been anticipated). Large numbers of Iraqis abroad are illegal refugees, and the risk of repatriation or expulsion to a war zone kept registration numbers low in some countries. Other reasons for low participation rates included security concerns, voter disinterest, difficult access to registration and voting facilities, and documentation issues. In the December election, when external voting was organised mainly by the IECI, 320,000 voters registered.
A sample of the information available on turnout by external voters
Where external voting is permitted, rates of registration and turnout among external voters are almost always lower than they are in-country. In several countries that have existing and well-functioning external voting practices, turnout has been low compared to turnout in-country. These include, for example, Brazil, Honduras, Italy, the Philippines, Senegal, Spain, Sweden and Venezuela. The turnout of Spanish external voters was below 30 per cent at the legislative election of 2004, compared to about 75 per cent among in-country voters. Even in Brazil, where voting is compulsory for citizens who are temporarily or permanently abroad, only about 50 per cent of eligible external electors participate. Mexico’s newly launched external voting programme for its July 2006 elections saw an unexpectedly low registration rate considering the large number of Mexicans living in the United States. For the Afghan presidential elections in 2004, 80 per cent of the registered electorate in Pakistan participated in the polls, and approximately one-half of those in Iran.
Conversely, some countries have found that, despite the progressive decline in the numbers of people voting from abroad, the percentage of registered external electors who actually vote remains very high. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, for example, although the absolute number of external electors is dropping as more citizens return home, the turnout of registered external voters has remained at approximately 80 per cent since the early 2000s.
In the elections to the European Parliament in 2004 only 8.9 per cent of the Finnish external electors residing abroad exercised their right to vote at the elections to the European Parliament. Women and men participated to almost the same extent in these elections as external voters. Low turnout among Finnish external voters has led to discussion about introducing postal voting from abroad so that external voters would not have to travel to a diplomatic mission in order to vote, and to the suggestion that reserved seats for external voters could be introduced to make external voting more meaningful.
Most countries that practise compulsory voting do not impose it on their external electors. Belgium, on the other hand, does impose this rule on external electors, but it is in effect an almost entirely theoretical rule as it is almost impossible to impose a sanction on a non-voter residing abroad. Turnout among Belgian external voters is lower than it is among Belgians residing in Belgium.
Namibia, which has personal voting only for external voters, organizes voting at 24 different polling places abroad and the roughly 1,900 voters who participated in the 2004 parliamentary and presidential elections averaged about 80 per polling station. Given the amount of preparation for and work involved during and after voting, much effort is put in for very few voters. Turnout among Namibian external voters is very low and represents only 0.09 per cent of the total turnout.
The reasons for lower turnout by external voters
The factors that influence lower turnout for external voters are political, administrative, institutional and financial. The reasons for low turnout vary among external voters just as they do among in-country voters, but some factors may be particular to external voting, such as the geographical location of polling stations, access to information, and the logistical arrangements for voter registration.
Locating polling stations only where embassies or consulates are available presents obstacles to voting for some external electors. For example, if polling stations are few in number or are difficult to access, this may contribute to low levels of participation. Conversely, Sweden set up fewer polling stations abroad in the 2006 parliamentary elections, but more votes were cast than when more polling stations had been available abroad. The opening hours of diplomatic missions may also affect the number of voters taking this opportunity.
The requirements for registering as a voter are also key to participation as this is in most cases the first step towards participation. One example of unfortunate arrangements is that of Mexico’s attempt at external voting in 2006 which required would-be voters to obtain a photographic voting card which was available only by going in person to Mexico. While it is estimated that 4.2 million of the 11 million Mexicans abroad had a valid photographic voting card, only 40,665 of these ended up registering to vote. Similarly, in Cambodia’s 1993 elections to the Constituent Assembly, external voting was possible at only very few locations in the United States and only if voters first travelled to Cambodia to register.
Requirements stating a minimum or maximum number of eligible voters may also work as a disincentive to participation or an obstacle to those who register as external electors but will not be included unless the numbers add up. Senegal, for instance, only organizes external voting if the total number of registered voters in one country is 500 or more. Other restrictions or preconditions, such as documentation requirements in the host country (Mexico) or stating an intention to return (the Philippines), can also make participation less attractive than it otherwise would be.
Depending on how, when and where the election campaign is organized, voters may feel more or less inclined to participate. In addition, only some candidates or parties may be represented in the campaign abroad, mainly for political or financial reasons. Some states (e.g. Mexico) have decided to provide a more level playing field between the participating political parties by simply not allowing any sort of campaign activity abroad, which has meant that the information made available to voters is not so dependent on the wherewithal of the parties to conduct international campaigns alongside their national campaigns. Furthermore, election and campaign information is not always readily available, thus putting the onus on the voter to inform himself or herself which may be more or less difficult depending on the circumstances. Even where large-scale media and advertisement campaigns are run—as was done within the USA, targeting the Mexican population, for the 2006 Mexican presidential elections—registration and turnout may still suffer.
The lack of sufficient cooperation by other states can make external voting difficult or even impossible due to legal and diplomatic issues. Liberia allowed external voting beginning in 1986, but abolished it in 2004 due to the inability of the electoral management body (EMB) to cope with refugees in the neighbouring countries, particularly as some of the neighbouring states objected to electioneering taking place within their territory. Another example of a country that used to restrict the options for voting methods for foreign voters is Switzerland, which until 1989 did not allow any voting in foreign elections to take place on its territory for sovereignty reasons.
Other reasons for low voter turnout can be attributed more directly to the voters themselves. Illegal migrants or those opposed to the regime in the home country may not be prepared to register to vote out of fear of reprisals. The Iraq elections showed that the sensitivity surrounding the registration and handling of personal information can dampen would-be electors’ enthusiasm to register and vote if the political situation is precarious. External electors, particularly if they are permanent residents abroad and/or hold multiple citizenships, may feel detached or apathetic regarding political events in their home state. This may be exacerbated if the decisions made by that state have little or no impact on the everyday life of the voter or the voter’s family.
On the other hand, several European countries have improved access to participation by external voters in elections to the European Parliament by allowing permanent residents with a foreign citizenship to vote in sub-national elections or elections to the European Parliament in their country of residence.
Problems arising from lower turnout by external voters
As is mentioned above, external voters may sometimes have a disproportionate influence on an electoral process. For example, nine countries have reserved seats in the legislature for external electoral districts (see section 6 above). Where this is the case, if external voter turnout is low, fewer votes will influence the outcome of the election for a parliamentary seat compared to internal constituencies, thus giving external votes disproportionate weight. Some countries weigh the number of external voters against the number of internal voters in order to decide how many seats can be allocated to represent external voters (e.g. Croatia).
Lower turnout by external voters also has to be seen in the light of the associated costs. External voting is often more expensive than organizing in-country voting. Some may argue that participation is a right regardless of cost in monetary or political terms, while others may contend that the degree of political effort and financial cost must be justified by appropriate levels of participation by voters abroad. Botswana, for example, is considering abolishing its external voting provisions as a result of the low turnout rates among external electors and high costs associated with the arrangements. External voting for legislative elections was introduced in 1997 and was employed in the 1999 and 2004 elections but turnout has not been impressive, despite increasing the number of countries in which external voting is available as well as the number of polling stations. This has opened an ongoing debate about whether external voting should be abolished given the high cost per voter, particularly when compared to in-country elections. In France, external voting is seen as very costly in terms of cost per voter.
Given examples such as these, a practical question must be asked whether the low turnout justifies the abolition of external voting or not introducing it in the first place, regardless of the more theoretical and normative counter-arguments surrounding citizenship. Levels of participation may influence decision-making processes regarding the introduction or abolition of external voting.
Image:
Jeff Votes! by knezovjb is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic License.
