The extension of the right to vote to citizens outside their home country varies enormously from country to country. Some countries allow no one to vote who is not physically present in their home country. Others allow any of their citizens to vote from anywhere in the world, regardless of whether their citizens have ever resided in the country of their citizenship. In between these two extremes, there are many variations that allow certain classes of citizens to vote.

As with so many other aspects of the electoral process, there is no single ‘correct’ way of deciding who should be entitled to vote externally. A model that will suit one country may be totally inappropriate in another. For example, it may be feasible to allow any citizen of a country to vote externally, regardless of their intention to return, where the population of the home country is large and the voting influence of expatriates would not be expected to outweigh that of the home population. On the other hand, a country with a small population and a relatively large number of expatriates might be wary of handing electoral influence to a body of persons who may no longer have a direct interest in their home country.

In attempting to specify ‘best practice’ principles to guide those who are considering adopting or amending external voting eligibility criteria, it may be worthwhile to consider the purpose of the franchise. The franchise is the right to vote for elected representatives. Its purpose is to allow persons to elect representatives to sit in parliament and/or the executive and to determine and administer laws on their behalf. It would therefore appear reasonable to limit the right to vote to those who have a direct interest in the determination and administration of those laws. However, if it is accepted that the franchise should only be granted to those with a direct interest in the process, it follows that extending the right to vote to absent citizens who have no intention to return to the home country—or to persons who hold dual citizenship and are permanent residents in another country where they are also citizens—may be seen as too generous. Indeed, it could be argued that a country’s sovereignty could be at risk if its representatives are elected in part by voters who reside abroad. It would also follow that the right to vote should be extended to absent citizens who intend to return in the foreseeable future, as they too would have a direct interest in the government of their home country. This argument would particularly apply to those who are temporarily absent in the service of their country, such as diplomats and members of the armed forces.

However, while it is easier to justify, using the principle of ‘intent to return’ as a determining factor to grant voting rights to citizens abroad may be more difficult to administer than allowing all citizens to vote while abroad. It requires, at a minimum, some form of notification from citizens who are abroad (or are going abroad) that their absence is temporary and that they intend to return to their home country. The question then arises whether notice of intent to return ought to be accepted at face value, or whether an objective test should be applied. It may be difficult to devise an objective test that is not discriminatory and contrary to the principles of universal suffrage. For example, requiring evidence of ownership of a house or property would clearly discriminate against those who do not own property and could be seen as a return to a property-based voting right. Whether this is necessary will depend on the circumstances of each country, and particularly on whether large numbers of electors are likely to register to vote while they are abroad.

Finally, what voting rights should permanent residents who are not citizens have? It is arguable that, in today’s global economy with an increasingly mobile population, the concept of citizenship may be losing its value as a determinant for the franchise. In future, countries may have to look at other criteria to determine whether a person residing abroad is eligible to vote in their elections. For the present, most countries continue to use citizenship as the main determinant of the franchise, and many grant the franchise to their citizens abroad regardless of intention to return. No doubt the issue of the extension of the eligibility to vote externally will continue to evolve in different ways in different places.