An increasing number of countries have granted electoral rights to their citizens living abroad. An understanding of the different dimensions of the electoral behaviour of migrants and the institutional characteristics of their countries of origin and residence is crucial for their political integration and (re-)socialization. Based on an aggregate-level design, this article evaluates the impact of compulsory voting on non-resident citizens’ voter turnout taking into account both origin and residence country contexts, providing insights into the dual context of political transnationalism. It explores the participation of Latin American migrants residing in Belgium, Luxemburg and the Netherlands in all their national and supranational elections since 2005, creating singular electoral environments where the voting obligation varies in the countries of origin and residence. The article finds that compulsory voting has a positive impact on non-resident citizens’ voter turnout and suggests trends of analysis of prospective electoral behaviour in a dual institutional context.

Research has revealed that a significant part of Muslims cast a vote for a left party, on the one hand, and/or a preferential vote(s), on the other, but the underlying explanatory factors remain unclear. Based on mediation analyses, we test whether the ‘left-wing tendency and personalization of the Muslim vote’ are motivated by specific considerations related to the Michigan model (issues, candidates, party evaluation) and/or minorities-specific factors (religion and political alienation) vis-à-vis non-Muslims. For this purpose, we focus on the electoral preferences of Muslims in Belgium based on mock ballot data connected to an exit poll for the Belgian local elections in 2018. Our structural equation analyses reveal that issues are particularly relevant for Muslims compared with non-Muslims when explaining the leftist vote. Furthermore, neither the Michigan model nor the minorities-specific variables seem to explain Muslims’ preferential voting vis-à-vis non-Muslims. Consequently, using in-depth interviews with Muslims, we further unravel these motivations and the decision-making process leading to their vote choices.

In this article, we look in detail at two populist radical right (PRR) parties’ framing and discourse around a key ideological area for PRRPs: migration and migrants. PRRPs have succeeded in agenda-setting around these issues, which have been a source of their electoral success. However, parties’ framing of these issues has also been a place for vagueness, through ‘doublespeak’ and euphemizing. Building on over 100 interviews with party representatives and members in Belgium and Switzerland, we investigate how the Swiss People’s Party (in government) and the Vlaams Belang (in opposition) portray migrants. In both cases, parties frame some migrants as ‘good’ and others as ‘bad’ based on cultural and economic criteria. This differentiation is enabled by euphemistic, unclear language. Parties’ substantive formulation of who fits into the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ migrant criteria differs. However, for both parties this differentiated portrayal of migrants reflects the need to walk a tightrope between moderate reputations and radical credentials on the key issue of nativism.

Living in a globalized world, where millions of people no longer live in their countries of birth, we ought to be asking ourselves whether and to what extent the traditional model of representative democracy is changing or needs to change. In particular, to what extent do citizens who live abroad participate in the democratic processes of their home country, and, conversely, what is the relationship with the electoral options in their new homelands? This research note explores the latter aspect by focusing on the Dutch national election held in March 2021. Based on a small sample of survey data, this exploratory analysis shows that non-citizen residents largely support less-established parties that have positioned themselves as parties that want to innovate and bring about new politics. This finding suggests that allowing immigrants to vote at national elections could have a visible impact on election outcomes.