International and domestic observers alike were astonished by the results of Peru’s recent presidential election. In the 5 June 2011 runoff against Keiko Fujimori, Ollanta Humala, the 2006 runner-up, won office with 51.5 percent of the vote. The 2011 presidential contest—the third since the fall of fujimorismo—highlighted both the scope and limitations of the democratic gains made in the last ten years. Is it a contradiction to say that Humala’s victory stemmed from the volatility of the electorate even as the socioeconomic profile of the typical Humala voter remained remarkably similar from 2006 to 2011? Does the continuity of a humalista vote undermine an explanation based on the contingency of electoral volatility and sustain the thesis of a vote motivated by discontent with the system?