Institutional reforms never involve one single objective, but rather several objectives simultaneously. For external voting, these objectives are:
At this stage other questions also arise: should external voting be extended to both representative organs and referendums or should it be restricted to one single type of electoral event, such as a direct election to the presidency? In the case of external voting for legislatures, is it convenient to establish a fixed threshold of representation for citizens living abroad or should such a threshold be arranged according to the actual electoral participation by external voters (perhaps by specifying minimum and maximum numbers of ‘external seats’)?
Overview of the arguments for and against the introduction of external voting
Three major conclusions may be drawn when considering reforms relating to external voting.
1. The introduction of external voting is likely to give rise to political controversy. There are solid theoretical arguments both in favour of and against external voting. On the one hand, the recognition of the principle of universal suffrage is regarded as a civil right, which can be realized by the widening of political participation. On the other hand, external voting implies the electoral participation of individuals who may not be directly affected by whatever effects the result brings about.
The historical trend clearly points towards the understanding of the right to vote as an individual right of every citizen, regardless of his or her place of residence. But a move to adopt or extend external voting by a particular country needs to ensure that all stakeholders are involved in the decision-making process, and that consequent trade-offs or drawbacks—for example, restrictions on electoral freedom such as inequalities in the political rights enjoyed by different people—are considered and are thus less likely to give rise to subsequent questioning of the constitutionality or legitimacy of the electoral process.
It is also good practice for the decision-making process to take into account not merely the substance of reform proposals, but also the perception of the proposals by the electorate and by the media. As with other areas of reform of electoral process, law and regulation, the success of change may depend not only on the substance of what is agreed but on the extent and effectiveness of civic and voter education activities to explain changes to the electorate both inside and outside the country.
As with any electoral reform proposal, external voting will be particularly controversial if the votes cast externally affect the result decisively and determine the winner. Such election results will be highly controversial among the relevant political actors.
The debate on external voting should not be allowed to overshadow consideration of the political inclusion of foreign citizens in their country of residence. A move has been made towards this principle through the introduction in many European Union member states of voting rights for citizens of other member states. A more widespread introduction of the right to vote in the country of residence would enable individuals with foreign nationality to take part in decisions that affect their personal interest and thus create a context of responsibility—although such a move could also generate political controversy, especially if foreign citizens were thought likely to give support disproportionately to one political group and if their votes were decisive in determining the result.
There is no ideal institutional design for external voting. Once a decision is made in favour of introducing external voting, the resulting legal provisions must be designed to suit the particular context of the country. Above all, attention must be paid to minimizing the possible trade-offs and unintended negative side effects.
