Completeness, Currency and Accuracy

Since voting in periodic, competitive elections is a cornerstone of democracy, it is necessary to ensure that all citizens have an opportunity to register and to vote. There are different guiding principles on whether registration and voting is simply a right or also a responsibility of citizenship. Those responsible for designing systems of voter registration must be clear on which principle is most operative in their jurisdiction. Once that principle is identified, then arriving at appropriate levels of completeness, currency and accuracy can be determined.

A voters list is complete to the extent that it includes all eligible voters. It is current to the extent that the data available on voters is consistent with their status on the date of the election (e.g., their current address is reported or newly eligible voters are registered). The voters list is accurate to the extent that the data on individuals has been recorded correctly, for example, without spelling or other errors. The standard in measuring these three performance indicators, however, will be different from one jurisdiction and voter registration system to another.

Cost and Performance Criteria

An inverse relationship exists between performance on these three measures and the cost of a voter registration system. In relative terms, obviously, the cost of registering the 'easiest' potential voters is less than the more 'difficult' ones. At some point, the cost of registering some difficult-to-register voters may even become prohibitive. Voters who may be difficult to register include those who live in remote areas, those who change their address frequently, nomads who have no real permanent address, and those who do not return registration forms promptly. Where that point is reached will vary from one jurisdiction to another.

Inclusiveness

This term refers to the registration of all groups and categories of citizens. Registration is inclusive when it is not systematically biased against any identifiable groups of eligible citizens. But once again, some citizens are more difficult to register because of their social or economic status. They may live in rural areas, for example, have low literacy levels, be economically disenfranchised or homeless, or subject to cultural biases against their participation in politics and public affairs, as exists in some jurisdictions against women. In such instances, extra measures may be required for the registration system to be truly inclusive. In other words, in order to break down barriers to representation among some groups, extra effort may be required to include them in the democratic process. It is important to understand both the formal and informal mechanisms of electoral exclusion and to address them through bona fide electoral administrative mechanisms.

Administrative Exclusion of Eligible Voters

The countervailing issue to inclusiveness is that of administrative exclusion of eligible voters. Voters become administratively excluded when the registration system does not encourage or facilitate their registration, and in particular when administrative barriers exist for eligible citizens to register to vote. There are many ways in which voters may be administratively disenfranchised, all of which may endanger electoral legitimacy. Some of the methods of administrative disenfranchisement, and possible solutions, include:

• Registration deadlines are very early, when interest in the election may be very low. The solution is to extend the registration period to allow for larger numbers of registrants as the election approaches. This may include provisions for voting day registration.
• Registration is costly, requiring the payment of fees, for example, for items such as voter identification cards. Efforts can be made to ensure that, wherever possible, costs of voter registration are not passed on the to citizen. Otherwise, the relatively poor will be administratively disenfranchised to a greater extent than the relatively affluent.
• Registration is time-consuming. Citizens sometimes are required to travel considerable distances to register to vote, losing time at work and incurring personal travel costs. The solution may be simply to increase the number of registration locations, including the use of mobile voter registration centres.

Administrative Exclusion in Cameroon

For its 1997 legislative election, Cameroon had counted 6,020,000 eligible voters, but only 3,719,774 of them had registered to vote, for an overall registration rate of 64.5 percent. It would appear that many who were not registered were administratively excluded; that is, they were excluded due to shortcomings with the registration process. There were allegations, for example, of discriminatory registration practices which made registration more difficult for members of certain ethnic communities. One common method of exclusion was to impose more rigorous requirements on some voters than on others for proof of citizenship. In addition, complaints were made that the registration process was disorganized, poorly communicated and poorly advertised.³³ Under such circumstances, there is little wonder that registration rates were low.