How framing impacts attitudes about electoral rights for non‐resident citizens

Abstract

Widespread adoption of policies granting electoral rights to citizens living abroad has spurred vivid scholarly debates regarding the drivers and consequences of extra‐territorial enfranchisement. But, little is known about the views of resident citizens in origin countries on the matter. We address this research gap and investigate how resident citizens' attitudes to external voting rights are affected by different arguments usually salient in homeland political debates. The study draws on an original survey experiment conducted across five countries (Belgium, Finland, Poland, Portugal and Ireland) with different external voting regulations. Our results show that utilitarian arguments on the costs and benefits of extra‐territorial enfranchisement are persuasively shaping public support for the voting rights of nationals living abroad. They further suggest that resident citizens in origin countries that already grant extensive political rights to non‐resident nationals are more receptive to moral arguments of democratic inclusion regarding the recognition of such entitlements.