Reject, Reject, Reject…Passed! Explaining a Latecomer of Emigrant Enfranchisement

Bibliographic Data

ID17823285
AuthorsVictoria Finn (0000-0001-6379-3720, University of Oslo, corresponding author), Juan Pablo Ramaciotti (0009-0001-6383-5510)
Year2023
Volume12
Publication date2023-11-08
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePolitics and Governance (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2183-2463 • E-ISSN: 2183-2463
PublisherCogitatio (PUBLISHER • PT)
DOI10.17645/pag.7331
OpenAlexW4388498858
LanguageEN
Citations received13
References cited41

Despite the extensive spread of external voting across the world, exceptions remain as some countries have not passed such regulations (e.g., Uruguay) or have passed them but lag implementation (e.g., Nicaragua). Others still took a long time to join the trend, possibly presenting a pushback to the commonly accepted notion of norm diffusion to explain migrant enfranchisement. We examine a latecomer by asking why Chile took so long to enfranchise emigrants. Classified as a liberal democracy with a century of legal history of foreign-resident voting, it repeatedly rejected proposed bills on external voting since 1971. Chile enacted external voting only in 2014, regulated it in 2016, and applied it in 2017. Through legal historical content analysis, we identify which political actors proposed the bills, when, and why each failed. Left and right-leaning actors gave normative, legal, and procedural reasons that resulted in rejection and stagnation at various institutional stages. This latecomer’s constitutional tradition, strongly focused on territory and territorial links, potentially sheds light on dozens of other country cases of late adoption of the external franchise

Business · Democracy · Economics · Franchise · Law and economics · Normative · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Voting · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Law · Migration, Refugees, and Integration · Political Conflict and Governance

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access