The cost of election integrity depends on the systems used and the extent of the safeguards required. The appropriateness of adopting certain integrity safeguards must be weighed against the potential risk to integrity at each stage of the electoral process. Elections lacking integrity will not be seen as credible, nor will the election results be viewed as legitimate. Sometimes candidates and voters are afraid to participate because of security threats. Sometimes apparent irregularities cast doubt on the election or on whether the outcome represented the will of the majority of voters. Having to organize re-run elections because of integrity problems can cost far more than adopting safeguards.

Electoral administrators and policy makers should determine whether it is worth the cost to adopt each of the mechanisms they are considering. They should ask themselves one question: How will the integrity of the electoral process be affected if we do not take this measure? [1]

Their assessment will differ according to the social and political context of the country concerned. In electoral systems characterized by high levels of distrust, extensive safeguards are usually adopted to ensure the integrity of the process and to reassure participants. The safeguards may involve high costs, but the extra expense can be justified if the result is a credible election accepted by the country. On the other hand, in established electoral systems where election procedures are routine and undisputed, the benefits of extra safeguards might not justify the additional cost.

Some integrity mechanisms may not require major outlays. For example, for effective planning and the development of good systems, all that is necessary is to make proper use of the time and skills of electoral professionals. The same is true for the internal control mechanisms that are part of any electoral management system.

Ensuring transparency and holding electoral administrators and election officers accountable for their actions are integrity safeguards that do not cost anything. Institutional protections based on a system of checks-and-balances are also crucial in maintaining integrity, and do not involve additional costs.

However, many election integrity safeguards are more expensive than these and require a cost-benefit analysis. What is the likelihood that the problem will actually occur and how would it affect the integrity of the election? How effective is the safeguard? Will it increase confidence in the integrity of the process? Will it increase the credibility of the process? Can we afford to adopt it and maintain it over time? Are there cheaper ways of achieving the same result? The following mechanisms are quite costly:

Suitable staff. Personnel costs are the largest expense in election administration. Risks mount if staff numbers are too low or if staff lack proper training.

Safeguards on electoral materials may also add to election costs. For example, it is more expensive to print serial numbers on ballot stubs, but they offer a simple and effective way of tracking ballots. Other mechanisms are more sophisticated but more expensive. It costs more to use watermarked security paper for ballots rather than ordinary paper. There may be fewer sources of supply for this kind of paper or other special materials, necessitating longer lead times.

The use of new technology can enhance integrity; examples are computerized inventories and registration lists with built in checking and control mechanisms. However, using new technology can sometimes create integrity risks; this could happen, for instance, if on-line voting becomes an option. New technology can be expensive, but the costs can be spread over a longer period if machines and software are used in subsequent elections. Technology suited to local conditions is usually cost-effective.

Equipment can be leased instead of purchased, reducing the risk of obsolescence. Equipment from other organizations can be used; in the 1999 election in Indonesia, a bank’s computer network was used for vote counting. In these circumstances, the integrity issues involved in using an outside system and staff must be considered. [2]

Adopting modern technology to improve integrity can be expensive in the short term because of the capital expenditure and training costs. In the long term, however, new technology can save money if it is effective.

Monitoring election integrity and enforcing legislation are key factors in maintaining integrity, and can also be costly. Nonetheless, monitoring can provide savings in the long run if it ensures acceptance of the election by all parties involved. Enforcement, investigation and prosecution can be costly, but they are effective in combatting corruption, ensuring the integrity of the process and helping to prevent future problems.

Voter education is another important integrity mechanism. But when funds are low, public education is one of the first programs to be dropped. Electoral administrators can find low-cost options for spreading information, such as negotiating free broadcasting time on radio or television, holding regular press conferences, and using non-governmental organizations to help convey critical messages to voters.

NOTES

[1] Harris, Paul, New Zealand Electoral Commission, communication with Sue Nelson.

[2] Ibid.