Obviously, it is impossible to even think about the possibility of an ideal model for external voting that would guarantee the effective inclusion of working migrants. There are neither standard flows of working migrants nor standard mechanisms for the casting of votes abroad. In this case as in any other one, the most appropriate model will be the one that will fit the prevailing conditions and fulfil the specific requirements of a particular context.
Nevertheless, this does not exclude the possibility that some different approaches and experiences can be identified and assessed that could be useful when designing a mechanism bearing in mind an electorate abroad that is predominantly made up of working migrants, and in this way facing some of the complexities that this challenge implies. With this objective in mind, this chapter analyses briefly the experience of a series of countries where emigration for work is the predominant component in their pattern of international migration, and which are therefore potentially able to adopt an external voting mechanism that allows the incorporation of working migrants. Although there are no conventional parameters to clearly identify the countries with such a profile, among the 114 countries and territories that currently allow their citizens to vote abroad, we have selected four which, according to basic indicators, are characterized by strong international migration mainly for work opportunities—the Philippines, India, Mexico and the Dominican Republic.
According to available estimates, the population from these countries that is entitled to vote and residing abroad is not only made up mostly of working migrants (and the members of their families); it also represents an important percentage of the total number of electors registered within the country. For instance (and taking into consideration the fact that precise data are not available for all cases), the population that would be entitled to vote in the Dominican Republic and is resident out of the country may represent up to 25 per cent of the 5 million electors registered in the country, whereas Mexicans abroad may represent about 15 per cent of the 70 million electors registered at the beginning of 2006.
To define how the specific external voting mechanisms of this group of countries are able to accommodate migrants working abroad, we will analyse and compare three of their main components: (a) the entitlement to vote as an external voter; (b) the requirements and procedures established for the registration of external voters; and (c) the procedure used for actual voting. In the light of the factors analysed in the sections above, the degree of inclusiveness of these three components can show how effectively the mechanisms adopted by these four countries include and integrate working migrants abroad. These three components also offer a framework within which to identify and assess the complexities and challenges that could face other countries that are considering making provision for external voting for migrant workers.
The mechanism adopted by India does not allow generalized access for working migrants abroad, since only those persons who are carrying out official duties and military personnel may be recognized as external voters. In the Philippines, Mexico and the Dominican Republic there are no restrictions of this kind, and they are therefore at least willing to include working migrants. These three countries also share two features that it is important to emphasize: (a) they only adopted mechanisms for external voting very recently (it was applied for the first time in the Philippines and Dominican Republic in 2004, and in Mexico in 2006); and (b) their adoption was to a great extent the result of pressure exerted by organized groups of migrants residing abroad.
Examination of the requirements and procedures for registration in these three countries reveals some filters that may restrict the access of migrant workers, particularly those whose stay in the host country is irregular. For the purposes of the present study, the most evident barrier is seen in Mexico and the Dominican Republic, where in order to be able to register as an elector the interested person must have an identification document which can only be obtained in the home country. If the citizen does not have this document and is unable to travel to the home country in order to obtain it within the time limits set for the registration process (a requirement that can sometimes be insurmountable), his or her ability to vote from abroad is in practical terms annulled.
It is also important to consider the procedures for registration and polling, which are very often interrelated: personal voting reduces the options for registration as an elector, whereas remote voting or mixed options extend the options. The three countries analysed clearly show the range of these variables. In the Dominican Republic the option has been personal voting, but only to be applied abroad in five countries (Canada, the United States, Spain, Puerto Rico and Venezuela) where the population resident abroad is concentrated. In this case it is possible to speak of a selective approach regarding the geographical coverage of external voting. This applies where most migrants, particularly workers, do not reside in large cities and do not have easy access to urban centres. In order to promote the registration of citizens in those five countries, the Dominican electoral registry had to send out staff to suburban areas around selected cities.
Mexico, where at the time of writing the country’s first experience of external voting was about to happen, in the presidential election of July 2006, surprisingly opted for a postal voting procedure. In principle, this could expand the possibilities of coverage and access to all potential electors, notwithstanding their place of residence or their location. However, as is mentioned above, the fact that an official identification document is required and is only obtainable in person within the country contributes to limiting the potential coverage and therefore to excluding certain migrant workers abroad.
The Philippines wisely opted for a mixed procedure. At first registration centres were established in all countries where there was a diplomatic or consular representation already in place, and in some cases the authorities used mobile units to promote and facilitate the registration of interested citizens. Later on, the general rule applied was that of personal voting in the same facilities, but voters living in countries with efficient postal services were also allowed to vote by post. The system for external voting in the Philippines embodies the most appropriate elements that have to be taken into account when a country’s external voters are mainly migrant workers.
