The aim here is to present a comparative overview of external voting practices worldwide. It is based on 214 countries and related territories. They include all UN member states as well as territories which, although they have a different juridical status, share a common feature: they elect their own authorities and are not represented in a parliament or legislative body of the state to which they belong.
The research shows that 115 states and territories have legal provisions which allow their electors to cast an out of country vote (as of May 2007). This figure includes five which have legal provisions in place to allow external voting but, for different reasons, it has not yet been implemented.
The information provided in this topic area only includes reference to countries and territories where external voting provisions exist for national elections or national referendums. Countries and territories where provisions for external voting exist only at local level have not been included.
A small number of countries have had legal provisions on external voting but only applied them exceptionally at one time in their history. There are cases where external voting has been used at one time in the history of a country or territory but where it is no longer continued or provided for in the legal framework. Eritrea and East Timor are examples of such cases. External voting was allowed in the referendums related to their independence, in 1993 and 1999, respectively. Another example of earlier use of external voting, on a very restrictive basis, is Cambodia, where external voting was allowed for elections to its Constituent Assembly in 1993, but only if voters had first travelled to Cambodia to register. Tokelau also falls into this category: here external voting was only used on a limited basis in its independence referendum in 2006.
This topic area attempts to map the different practices in external voting, and to describe and group some of them. It should be noted that the process of categorizing these builds on 115 cases of external voting and, while it aims to describe all practices, some may seem simplified or may not be represented at any great length.
The countries which have current provisions for external voting
External voting provisions are widespread throughout the world. External voting is most common in Europe, but is found in every region of the globe. All regions have in common that a majority of the countries and territories have external voting.
Examination of the types of countries that have external voting also shows that they are very different in the level of socio-economic development: they include both Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries and countries from the less developed regions of the world. While there is no obvious correlation between external voting provisions and socio-economic or political features, these factors remain important in the debates and decision making related to external voting provisions and practices, and are often reflected in the challenges or complexities faced. The countries also differ in the length of time for which their democracies have been established, their roots, and the stability and consolidation of their institutions and democratic practices. They include well-established democracies along with the emerging or restored ones, and even some countries that can only doubtfully be classified as democratic.
Countries and territories with current provisions for external voting
There are various known cases (E.g. parliamentary and presidential elections in Ghana in 2008) where, despite there being some kind of constitutional or legal provisions making out of country voting possible, it has not materialized due to the lack of the political, legislative, financial or administrative agreement required for it to be regulated or organized. This provides evidence of the increasing relevance of external voting on the political and electoral agenda in several regions of the world, as well as of the polemics involved in debates on its relevance and feasibility and the varied complexities of decision making.
Countires where external voting provisions exist but are still to be implemented
The case of Ecuador is here as representative as it is paradoxical. In late 2002 the Congress finally approved the legislation for external voting to be applied during the presidential elections of 2006; however, years before, in April 1987, the Congress had resolved to withdraw from the constitution dispositions on this matter that had been approved three months earlier on the grounds that they were unconstitutional.
There are other countries, such as Chile, El Salvador and Guatemala in Latin America, where, although no legal provision has been approved, the issue is so relevant that external voting has entered the agenda of political and legislative debate or been advocated as a priority topic on that agenda. In Chile it has been suggested that external voting be applied to presidential elections and referendum instruments. Regional organizations have pointed out the importance of external voting in relation to earlier elections in Guatemala. The lower chamber of the Costa Rican Parliament has received a draft new electoral law which includes provisions for external voting. Parliamentary committees in Panama have discussed draft bills to provide for external voting and potential methods. A decision has been taken by the Congress in 2006 and by the Electoral Tribunal in 2007 to allow external voting.
As to other regions of the world, there is for example a draft reform of the electoral code before the Congress of the Comoros article 4 of which would introduce the possibility of voting in referendums from abroad. Some countries, for example Egypt, consider the introduction of external voting to be a purely administrative measure which will soon be in place. Discussions in Nigeria have also led to an increased interest in external voting.
Several countries that have existing provisions for external voting and in some cases a long history of implementing it are considering extending or improving the external voting process. This can be done by extending the voting rights to additional types of election or to a larger group of voters or by offering additional voting methods to the existing external voters. One example is that Estonian voters have been able to try and vote through electronic out of country voting (e-voting), in addition to personal and postal voting.
Armenia is a recent example of a country deciding to abolish external voting. The new electoral law which came into force in January 2007 in the context of allowing dual citizenship has no provisions for external voting. It was argued that Armenians abroad should not have any major say in deciding on the leadership and fate of Armenia, and that this should be the exclusive right of Armenians living in Armenia. Interestingly, despite the large size of the Armenian diaspora, very few use their external voting rights. Turnout among external voters has been very low and there are no signs that those voters could have had a significant influence over earlier election outcomes.
