Are Paloma’s 1.6 Million Votes Really Juan Daniel Oviedo’s? The first round of Colombia’s 2026 presidential election left one of the most intriguing political questions of the campaign: who truly owns the approximately 1.6 million votes obtained by conservative candidate Paloma Valencia?
As the country heads into a runoff between Ivan Cepeda and Abelardo de la Espriella, analysts are debating whether a significant portion of Valencia’s support actually belonged to her running mate, Juan Daniel Oviedo, and whether those voters will now determine the next president.
Valencia entered the race as one of the most recognizable figures of the Colombian right. A senator associated with former President Alvaro Uribe’s political movement, she built her campaign around security, economic growth, and criticism of the left. However, throughout much of the campaign, observers noted that her vice-presidential candidate, former national statistics chief Juan Daniel Oviedo, often generated more enthusiasm among urban and independent voters than Valencia herself.
Oviedo developed a strong public profile during his years leading Colombia’s national statistics agency. His technocratic image, moderate tone, and popularity among younger voters helped him cultivate a political following that extended beyond traditional conservative circles.
For that reason, some analysts argue that Valencia’s final vote total may not represent a unified conservative bloc. Instead, it could be a coalition of traditional right-wing voters loyal to Valencia and a more centrist, pragmatic group attracted by Oviedo.
Related: Paloma Valencia Calls for Support for De la Espriella to Defeat Ivan Cepeda in Colombia.
That distinction matters enormously ahead of the runoff
If the votes were primarily Valencia’s, the expectation would be that most of them naturally migrate toward Abelardo de la Espriella. The lawyer and political outsider has positioned himself as the strongest anti-left candidate remaining in the race. Ideologically, many Valencia supporters share his emphasis on law and order, private enterprise, and opposition to the policies of outgoing President Gustavo Petro.
However, if a substantial portion of the votes were driven by Oviedo’s appeal, the picture becomes more complicated.
Oviedo’s supporters are often described as urban professionals, younger voters, and political independents who prioritize management skills over ideological battles. While many may reject Cepeda’s left-wing platform, others could view him as a less polarizing figure than De la Espriella. Some may even abstain rather than support either finalist.
Recent Colombian electoral history suggests that vice-presidential candidates rarely transfer votes directly. Voters ultimately cast ballots for presidential tickets, not individual running mates. Yet exceptional figures can influence electoral behavior, particularly when they possess a personal brand that extends beyond their party.
Oviedo’s endorsement
The key question is whether Oviedo actively endorses one of the finalists. A public endorsement of De la Espriella could help consolidate conservative voters and reduce abstention. On the other hand, a neutral position could leave many of his supporters politically homeless, forcing them to make independent decisions.
At this stage, the most likely scenario is that De la Espriella captures the majority of Valencia’s votes due to ideological proximity. Nevertheless, Cepeda may still attract a meaningful share of Oviedo-inspired voters who are less motivated by partisan identity and more concerned with governance and institutional stability.
As Colombia approaches the runoff, Paloma Valencia’s 1.6 million votes could become the decisive electoral prize. Whether those ballots belong to Valencia, Oviedo, or a combination of both may ultimately determine who occupies the presidential palace for the next four years.