Keiko Fujimori was sworn in as Peru’s president Tuesday after winning a close election that set an unprecedented milestone in Latin America.
She edged out Roberto Sánchez, a candidate who had more support within the country but ended up losing after votes from citizens living abroad were counted. It’s the first time such a scenario has ever happened.
The impact of overseas voters was also felt in Colombia’s presidential race this year. Abelardo de la Espriella won by about 250,000 votes, but his margin over Iván Cepeda would have been much closer — under 75,000 — if not for voters from abroad.
The results of these elections have focused greater attention on the diaspora vote, partly because those votes are the last part of the electorate to be counted. That makes it seem as if they play an especially decisive role, even though they count the same as votes from any province or region.
“There is a pernicious calendar trap. These are the votes that are counted at the end, so it seems like they are decisive votes,” said political scientist Manuel Alcántara Sáez, director of the International Center for Political and Social Studies (CIEPS-AIP) in Panama.
If the results in Peru and Colombia had not been so close, the diaspora vote would be a marginal issue, argued Chilean political scientist Marcela Ríos Tobar, director for Latin America and the Caribbean at the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA).
“I don’t know if we can say it has changed or that it carries more weight; I don’t think we can extrapolate those results. It depends on other factors, such as how large the diaspora population is in each country and what percentage votes,” she pointed out.
With several nations advancing measures to ease and expand the participation of their citizens abroad, here’s a look at the possible impact they could have and how it varies by country.
High potential, low participation
The potential of the external vote can be huge in countries with a large diaspora, but Ríos emphasized that abstaining is considerably higher abroad, which often lessens the impact.
“In general, diasporas vote much less than populations in their home territories. Participation (abroad) does not reach 13%, versus 61% (in the country). It also has to do with the size of the diasporas,” she explained.
The regulations of each country also make a difference.
In Peru, where voting is mandatory even for residents abroad and registration is automatic after a change of address, more than 300,000 people voted from another country, and participation reached 27% in the June runoff, in line with the historical average.
The situation is different in Mexico, however. The country has the second-largest diaspora in the world — more than 13 million people — but only about 185,000 participated in the 2024 elections.
“The diaspora is gigantic, but the percentage that votes is extremely small. Voting abroad was established only recently and for now is restrictive; it is not widespread as long as the mechanism is not changed,” Ríos said.
In addition to registering, Mexican citizens must have a credential previously processed at a consulate.
Guatemala is another country with a significant diaspora — about 3 million — but it implemented out-of-country voting for the first time in 2019. In the first round of the 2023 election, 1,443 people voted abroad, although the figure could have been higher because many Guatemalans went to voting centers without their documents or were not registered.
As for the Venezuelan diaspora, the potential impact is enormous, with nearly 5 million citizens eligible to vote. But only about 1% were able to cast their ballots in 2024 due to difficulties with registration, deadlines and lack of documentation. According to the opposition, this was a deliberate attempt by the sitting government to prevent the participation of emigrants, most of whom left because of the economic and political crisis of recent years.
A process still evolving
The two countries that recently brought the issue into debate are the ones that pioneered external voting in Latin America. Colombia inaugurated it in 1962, and Peru followed in 1980.
In the 1990s and 2000s, more countries began to reform their electoral laws to incorporate participation from abroad.
“Most countries that already have legislation are seeking mechanisms to facilitate it,” said Ríos. Most systems use only in-person voting, she said, although in places such as Colombia, “they are facilitating and improving access” and allowing early voting.
But she added that there is still a long way to go before voting abroad is as easy as voting inside a country of origin.
“As long as there is no postal or expanded voting, or an electronic voting mechanism, being able to vote remains cumbersome,” Ríos said. “Many times, specific documents are required; one must go in person to register; not all allow online registration. There is a cost in time and money.”
“It remains expensive for many Latin Americans who live outside the cities” where consulates or voting boards are located, she said.
For his part, Alcántara said that security ought to be considered in the process.
The Spanish political scientist noted that voters who do not have legal residency in the United States might be afraid to participate and draw attention to themselves, given the White House’s anti-immigrant campaign. “With the sense of panic about being discovered,” people don’t want to risk being photographed in a public place, he said.
Debate on representation
The fact that the overseas vote was so significant in Peru and relevant in Colombia has revived debates about the rights of members of the diaspora, especially those from disadvantaged communities.
“The question, in some ways philosophical, is whether someone who is outside the country has the right to vote,” Alcántara said.
There’s also the question of how far citizenship should be extended.
“Does someone (living abroad) have the right to express their opinion in general elections?” Alcántara asked.
Ríos pointed out that the concept of political representation is often linked to that of citizenship, which in many cases applies not only to those born in the country but also to children of nationals abroad. “We have a long tradition of broad recognition of citizenship. It is a right because it allows maintaining the link with their countries of origin,” she commented.
Only three Latin American countries — Uruguay, Nicaragua and Cuba — have not enabled voting for nationals abroad. “Uruguay is an anomaly, the only one among the region’s consolidated democracies that does not recognize the vote of people abroad. The idea of questioning the right of those who live outside is more established,” Ríos said.
The researcher also indicated that having significant communities abroad has contributed to the expansion of the right. “We have a long history of diasporas due to forced displacement, wars, persecution, exile. It is like a form of reparation,” she said.
“In Mexico, in Central American countries or in Colombia, there are citizens who leave for more economic reasons. Allowing them to vote is allowing a connection with their country of origin, strengthening ties. Moreover, many play an important role: remittances in some countries make up a considerable part of GDP,” she added.
The issue has been gaining traction in some electoral campaigns with the aim of capturing those votes.
Ríos indicated that in some cases there is a lack of clear regulation on what is allowed and how activities abroad are financed, while Alcántara highlighted that movements and candidacies are already mobilizing on social networks targeting the diasporas.
“Without a doubt,” campaigns are being adjusted to reach that electorate, he said.
CNN’s Michael Rios contributed to this report.
The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.