Vote requested: impossible vote in Spain?

All countries recognize the right to vote for resident nationals. On the other hand, the solution is different for non-residents. In Europe, states whose nationals are the most emigrated do not usually grant it, except to military personnel or officials abroad (Malta, Ireland). Others only recognize it to those who have resided in the country (Germany, United Kingdom, Sweden). In Spain, the Constitution urges the legislator to facilitate the voting of non-resident nationals. This precept was intended to give the right to participate politically to those who were to go into exile.

It is not appropriate to discuss the question of the extent to which non-resident nationals should have the right to vote. The problem is that, if they are recognized, their exercise in practice should be made possible, while trying to cover the requirements of "free, direct and secret" suffrage. And this equilibrium is not easy because, as non-residents are outside the territory over which the state exercises sovereignty, it does not have the means to impose the conditions that guarantee these requirements.

Until 2011, the electoral documentation was sent automatically by the constituency to which each national registered in the census of absentee residents (CERA) was badigned, the latter being able to vote by ordinary mail of that country. There was clear evidence of fraud because the census had not been updated and included a relevant number of deceased persons. This has been facilitated for other people to send the vote overriding them, as in ordinary mail, there is no evidence of the identity of the sender.

To avoid this, a reform was approved in 2011 under which non-resident nationals had to expressly request participation at each election ("vowed prayer"). In addition, since they must be sent to the official candidates corresponding to the constituency to which they are attached, the deadlines are very short.

If the documentation arrives on time, voters can exercise the right to vote in person at embbadies or consulates for two days, or send the vote by mail. The practical result of the inclusion of this procedure is that the participation went from 31.74% to CERA in 2008 to 4.95% in 2011. And 30% of these votes were not counted for their delay. In a context where the number of non-resident nationals has increased significantly as a result of the crisis, these obstacles have created a strong social demand for the reform of beggar voting.

As we have said, it is not easy to maintain a balance between allowing the exercise of the right to vote and ensuring compliance with constitutional requirements in the same way to avoid fraud. To avoid bad practices, it is essential to keep the CERA up-to-date. For example, it may be required that registrants have to renew their registration every five years, so that they do not have to request the right to vote at each subsequent election, ending with the requested vote.

Similarly, the possibility of voting in person at embbadies, consulates or even other public bodies abroad should be strengthened. An in-person vote better meets the requirements of "free, direct and secret" suffrage than the one sent by ordinary mail, in which it is impossible to control the identity of the person who finally introduced the ballot into the ballot box. 39; envelope. But being a special situation, it must be allowed at least to those who do not have in the city where they live a place where to exercise their right in person.

The opposite would imply recognizing a right that it would in practice be impossible to exercise. In this case, they could send the registered voters an official ballot in which they must include the acronyms of the party or coalition of their choice, indicating at the same time where they will be able to consult the candidatures of their constituency. This allows you to send the documentation in advance so you do not have to wait for the publication of applications. The voter could vote before, arriving in time his vote in case of voting by mail.

They can also contribute to technological advances that have begun to be incorporated into electoral processes, distinguishing between electronic voting in person (electronic voting) and remote voting via the Internet (electronic voting). On-site e-voting systems would facilitate voting by non-residents, as they should not be sent later by post to each constituency.

On the other hand, remote voting on the Internet does not respect the required guarantees. In addition to the problem of potential coercion linked to remote voting, there are security risks and a possible digital divide. Indeed, French voters living outside the country were able to vote online in the 2012 legislative elections. In 2017, this possibility disappeared for fear of cyberattacks.

Annick Laruelle: Professor IKERBASQUE of Fundamentals of Economic Analysis, University of the Basque Country / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
Aitor Zurimendi Island: Professor of Commercial Law, University of the Basque Country / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea