Cost effective budgeting relies on planning that takes into account the ongoing work of the electoral management body and its expected legislated outputs. Effective budgeting is better achieved if done in the wider context of financial management. The permanency or non-permanency of the electoral management body affects the efficacy of the financial planning cycle.
Developing estimates of the financial and other resource needs of voting operations is more effectively implemented within the context of an overall financial management plan than as an ad hoc exercise. Where electoral management bodies are permanent bodies, the establishment of a budget planning cycle, linked to a legislative timetable for funds approval (see Funds Assurance and Timing of Electoral Funds), with regular reviews and updates of needs for voting operations expenditures, will assist in the readiness for implementing voting operations processes.
Budget panning for permanent electoral management bodies can be continuous and more accurate as its ongoing expenses are easier to predicate adequately.
Even where elections are held at irregular terms, the introduction of such a cycle can be based on historical data on average length between elections.
Longer term financial planning can bring with it substantial cost -efficiencies in the staged and tested acquisition and introduction of new systems and technologies at a pace that the organization can digest.
It will also provide a reasonable time frame in which to develop "bottom up" estimates detailing accurately financial and other resource needs and allow more rigorous scrutiny of these. For that reason temporary electoral management bodies can be at a disadvantage in two respects when preparing budgets for voting operations:
- Often there will be insufficient time to develop more accurate "bottom up" budgets based on actual local conditions in each local administrative area (see Budgeting Systems). This may lead to budgets being calculated more on the basis of the costs of the last election, adjusted for any broad changes in the overall election environment, than on objective current data.
- The lack of continuity can mean that systems, voting arrangements, materials and staff have to be developed and implemented, and purchases made, in a brief time frame. This can limit the ability to purchase in the most cost-effective manner. The compressed time frame for implementation of the necessary arrangements can result in higher overheads.
