What is a reasonable cost to pay for democracy? This is not a question that can be answered by accountants and financial managers. There are too many difficult-to-price values inherent in voting operations. This is not to say that cost-effectiveness is not a major guiding principle of voting operations. However, conditions over which administrators of voting operations may have little, if any, control may include:
• the confidence of the community in the stability and flexibility of the political environment;
• satisfaction of the varying needs of different sectors of the population to enable equity of access to voting processes;
• risks of manipulation of voting processes by vested political interests.
Any of these factors can limit the ability of voting operations administrators to provide lower cost, or even locally affordable, solutions that will provide operational integrity.
The emphasis has to be on cost-effectiveness for the environment, on achieving a level of voting operation’s integrity and equity that enables the acceptance of election outcomes by participants and the public, and the elimination of waste and redundant costs, rather than on lowest possible costs.
Narrow comparisons between jurisdictions of such indicators as cost per voter, without considering how effectively the expenditure dealt with achieving an acceptable balance among all the guiding principles of voting operations (see Guiding Principles of Voting Operations), may not be at all useful.
Budget Preparation
In preparing for voting operations, decisions have to be made about when and in what manner budgets are to be prepared, and purchases and other expenditure monitored to ensure that all expenditure effectively adds value to the process.
Specific financial provisions required for voting operations, the optimal timing of expenditure and effective structures for financial management will be dependent on:
• the electoral management system, particularly its temporary or permanent nature, its local, regional or central focus, and the degree of its independence from other organs of the state;
• the general processes for public authority funding.
Guidelines
In considering costs of voting operations there are some general guidelines to consider:
Proposed expenditures should be subject to rigorous cost/benefit analysis: What do they add to the achievement of voting operations objectives; how does this compare with alternative methods; does any incremental achievement justify increased costs?
For example, is expensive special security paper required for ballots, or could the same or acceptable similar fraud prevention be achieved by using simpler and cheaper authentication methods such as use of seals or voting station official marks in voting stations?
Additionally, what non-financial costs need to be considered for alternative methods? In the above example, are there additional factors of delivery times for ballot paper stock; is there any affect on voter service by giving voting station officials an additional task?
Variations in regional or local estimated costs of voting operations require careful scrutiny to ensure that these variations are supported by valid reasons: Higher-than or lower-than average costs in particular regions or local areas need not be a cause for alarm, as long as such variations are the result of an effective response to providing equitable and consistent service to voters.
To enable a reasonable level of accessibility, voting operations costs may well be considerably higher in rural areas, or in areas with language or literacy challenges.
Wherever possible use existing capital and equipment resources or acquire equipment that can be jointly used with other bodies, or that can be used in future elections: As elections are infrequent events, this will generally be a more effective overall use of available funds. In considering these issues, attention also needs to be paid to non-financial cost factors, particularly political environment issues.
For example, use of facilities provided at low cost or free of charge by other agencies of the state--such as use of state communications systems or state premises for voting stations--may affect perception of the independence of voting operations or even dissuade voters from participating.
It is generally more effective to hire or lease than purchase major equipment: Given the high additional volumes required for only a short period, unless valid continuing uses for the equipment can be justified.
Ensure the reliability, appropriateness and affordability of methods and equipment chosen for each particular environment.
Voting operations are to some extent a showcase. However, this should not be allowed to override sound judgment about necessary expenditure. Simpler methods may not look as impressive, but can deliver a more reliable, auditable, transparent and less costly outcome.
In developing countries where the currency may not be stable, consideration needs to be given to the foreign exchange situation: Even where foreign purchases are less costly and more appropriate, their use of scarce foreign exchange and development of external dependence may make local solutions preferable.
Offers of international funding for elections need also to be carefully scrutinized for the benefits and costs of any requirements to use equipment of particular type and source.
And lastly, a question that should be given careful consideration: Are there aspects of voting operations that can be delivered as effectively, with sufficient integrity guarantees, yet with cheaper current and overhead costs, by contracting other organizations rather than by the electoral management body?
