Diaspora votes decided Peru and Colombia’s tight races | Ukraine news

Overseas ballots in Peru and Colombia were counted late and decisively, exposing how turnout and rules can swing narrow results.

A long-term victory by Keiko Fujimori made Peru an example for Latin America: her election followed a tense campaign in which diaspora votes played a decisive role for the first time. She edged Roberto Sánchez, a candidate with greater domestic support, but lost after overseas ballots were counted. Those votes became decisive for the outcome for the first time.

In a similar context, the influence of diaspora voting was also felt in Colombia: Abelardo de la Espriella won by roughly 250,000 votes, but his lead over Iván Cepeda could have been larger or smaller depending on how overseas voters cast their ballots.

A look at these results highlights the role of diaspora votes: they are typically tallied after the main portion, creating the impression of their decisive weight, even though their share carries the same significance as votes from any region.

There is a pernicious calendar trap. These are the votes counted last, so it seems they are decisive.

– Manuel Alcántara Sáez

If the outcomes in Peru and Colombia had not been so close, diaspora votes could be considered a mere triviality; however, it all depends on the size of the diaspora and what percentage of citizens vote.

I don’t know whether we can say that this has changed or carries more weight; I don’t think we can extrapolate these results. It depends on other factors, such as the size of the diaspora in each country and what percentage votes.

– Marcela Ríos Tobar

In the context of several countries easing access to participation by citizens abroad, it is worth considering the potential impact of diaspora voting and its variations depending on the country.

The Potential of Overseas Voting Across Different Countries

The overall potential of overseas voting can be significant where the diaspora is large, but expert Marcela Ríos Tobar explains that participation abroad is usually lower than in the country itself: “Overall, diasporas vote much less than the country’s population. Participation abroad does not reach 13%, while at home it is 61%”; this also depends on the size of the diaspora.

Regulatory rules in each country significantly affect the accessibility of voting abroad. In Peru, voting is compulsory even for residents abroad, and registration is automatic after a change of address; over 300,000 people vote abroad, and turnout in the latest round was about 27%.

In Mexico, the situation is different: the country has the second-largest diaspora in the world – over 13 million people, but only about 185,000 citizens participated in the 2024 elections. It is noted that the diaspora is large, but the turnout is very low; overseas voting was introduced relatively recently and is still limited in form and access.

Guatemala also has a sizable diaspora – around 3 million – but introduced voting abroad for the first time in 2019; in the first round of 2023, 1,443 citizens voted abroad, though the actual number could have been higher if citizens had documents or were not registered.

Regarding the Venezuelan diaspora, the potential impact is enormous – almost 5 million citizens have the right to vote. However, about 1% gained the opportunity to vote in 2024 due to issues with registration, deadlines, and documents. According to the opposition, this may reflect government restrictions on the participation of emigrants, many of whom left due to the crisis.

Colombia and Peru became pioneer countries of overseas voting in Latin America. Colombia introduced it in 1962, Peru in 1980, after which other countries also reformed legislation to include participation abroad. Most systems use in-person voting, but some countries, notably Colombia, have eased access and allow early voting, implementing various forms of participation.

There are currently no comprehensive postal voting systems, expanded voting schemes, or electronic mechanisms, which makes overseas voting less convenient. Regulatory and technical constraints remain the main barriers to actively engaging the diaspora, requiring time and financial costs for documents and trips to consular posts.

In future campaigns, this issue remains strategic: parties are increasingly tailoring their messaging and tactics to the diaspora audience through social networks and targeted activities. Clear regulatory rules and convenient overseas voting mechanisms are of crucial importance.

As we work to expand diaspora rights, it is important to balance security, procedural transparency, and accessibility for the millions of people who have ties to the country of origin but live outside its borders.