LIMA, Peru -- Unofficial results show that an anti-establishment military man who promises to redistribute Peru's wealth is headed to a presidential runoff against the daughter of jailed former President Alberto Fujimori.
Because no candidate won a majority Sunday, they will meet in a June 5 runoff.
Alberto Fujimori led Peru in the 1990s and was sentenced recently to 25 years in prison for ordering killings.
The second-place finisher could easily become president in the runoff June 5, as none of Humala's leading rivals in the race have shown themselves similarly bent on shaking up the free market-oriented status quo.
Humala won the first round in 2006, only to be defeated 53 percent to 47 percent by Alan Garcia in a runoff.
Keiko Fujimori, 35, who was second, is alternately adored and vilified by Peruvians.
Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, a 72-year-old former World Bank economist and investment banker, was third. In fourth was Alejandro Toledo, Peru's president from 2001 to 2006. Pre-election polls showed he would defeat Humala in a second round while Kuczynski and Fujimori would have a harder time.
Humala has spooked foreign investors by promising a greater state role in the economy and to divert natural gas exports to the domestic market.
That's just fine with Federico Sandoval, 60, a veterinarian in Lima's sprawling lower-class Villa El Salvador district. Sandoval said he voted for Humala because the corruption that has long been a hallmark of Peruvian politics, and that many believe worsened under President Garcia, needs to stop.
"In order to improve the situation there need to be changes and they should be radical," Sandoval said.
Politics in this resource-rich Andean nation have been volatile since the 1980s, when its discredited political parties all but dissolved, and Sunday's vote was the most unpredictable in decades.
"The people are very divided," said Luis Tamayo, 25, an engineering student in Villa el Salvador who, like many educated Peruvians, voted for Kuczynski.
Nobel literature winner Mario Vargas Llosa said sardonically that the outcome presented "a choice between AIDS and terminal cancer" because of perceived anti-democratic tendencies of both candidates.