Colombia will elect its president in 2026 under an electoral system that requires candidates to win more than half of the vote in order to avoid a runoff. In a fragmented political landscape with several competitive candidacies, all signs point to Colombians returning to the polls on June 21 to decide who will occupy the Casa de Nariño — the presidential palace — for the next four years.
Polls show that none of the candidates currently holds a sufficient lead to win in the first round, despite calls from the campaigns of leftist Ivan Cepeda and conservative populist Abelardo De la Espriella to secure victory in next Sunday’s initial vote.
The possibility of a runoff once again puts the spotlight on a mechanism Colombia has used for more than three decades and that transformed the way presidential power is contested. The system was designed to ensure that the president takes office with broad support rather than merely a relative majority in divided elections.
Even so, there have been historic exceptions, such as Alvaro Uribe’s first-round victories, a precedent some candidates are trying to replicate in the current campaign.
Presidential elections in Colombia: A two-round system
Colombia’s presidential runoff system was officially introduced with the 1991 Constitution. Since then, to win the presidency in the first round, a candidate must obtain more than 50 percent of the valid votes cast. If no contender reaches that threshold, the two most-voted candidates advance to a second electoral round held weeks later.
In that decisive stage, the winner is simply the candidate who receives the most votes. The mechanism seeks to prevent a president from coming to power with minority support in contexts of strong political fragmentation, a frequent situation in Latin America. It also forces candidates to broaden alliances and seek new support after the first round.
The electoral logic changes completely between one round and the next. The first usually functions as an open competition among different ideological sectors and regional leaderships. The second, by contrast, becomes a direct contest between two national projects, where strategic voting takes on decisive importance.
The first Colombian presidential election held under this mechanism was the 1994 race. On that occasion, Ernesto Samper defeated Andrés Pastrana in a runoff campaign marked by allegations and strong political polarization. Since then, the runoff has become a recurring feature of Colombian democracy.
The most remembered exception was Alvaro Uribe. In 2002, he won outright in the first round with more than 53 percent of the vote amid a deep security crisis and the collapse of peace negotiations with the guerrillas under his predecessor, President Pastrana (1998-2002). His message of authority and direct confrontation against armed groups managed to concentrate an unusually broad electoral backing.
Uribe won again in the first round in 2006, already eligible for reelection following a controversial constitutional reform that was later annulled. To this day, he remains the most cited example among those who argue that it is still possible to conclude a Colombian presidential election without the need for a runoff.
In the current campaign, several candidates are appealing precisely to that idea. Some sectors are trying to promote the possibility of a decisive first-round victory, especially by appealing to strategic voting and political polarization. However, the current context appears far more divided than that of the early 2000s.
Polls show a much tighter contest among different candidates and ideological blocs. That fragmentation reduces the chances of any contender surpassing the 50 percent threshold needed to avoid a new vote.
A system widely used in Latin America
The presidential runoff is one of the most widely used electoral systems in Latin America. Countries such as Brazil, Chile, Peru, and Uruguay use similar mechanisms to elect their presidents.
Argentina has a less strict variant. There, a candidate can win in the first round with 45 percent of the vote, or even with 40 percent if the margin over the second-place contender exceeds ten points. Brazil and Chile, by contrast, require more than 50 percent, just like Colombia.
Outside Latin America, the best-known example is France. The French system historically turned the second round into a decisive stage for the construction of political alliances and the emergence of electoral fronts aimed at blocking certain candidates.
Supporters of the two-round system argue that it strengthens presidential legitimacy because it forces the construction of broad majorities. Critics, meanwhile, contend that it often encourages temporary alliances and more intense polarization between two opposing blocs.
As Colombia approaches a new presidential election, the system is once again demonstrating its influence over the entire campaign. Alliances, rhetoric, and electoral strategies no longer depend solely on winning the first vote, but also on how candidates position themselves to enter a potential runoff with momentum.