The cost of integrity depends on the systems used and the extent of the extra safeguards adopted. The need to adopt specific integrity mechanisms and the cost of these mechanisms has to be balanced against the level of risk associated with each part of the electoral process. Electoral managers and policy makers have to make a judgement on whether the cost of each mechanism justifies its adoption. This can be done by asking the question: How likely is it that the integrity of the electoral process will be affected if we do not take this measure and incur the costs involved?12
This assessment will differ according to the Social and Political Context of each country. In electoral systems characterized by high levels of mistrust, extensive safeguards are usually adopted, in part to reassure the participants, and in part to ensure the integrity of the process. These safeguards can involve higher costs, but the additional expense can be justified if it results in a credible election that is accepted by the country. On the other hand, in established electoral systems, where election procedures are routine and unquestioned, the benefits from adding extra safeguard mechanisms might not justify the additional cost. This concept is discussed in the Case Study on Voter Identification in Australia
There are integrity mechanisms that can be adopted that do not require massive amounts of additional spending. For example, effective planning and the development of good systems (see Election Management) require only the good use of the time and knowledge of competent electoral professionals. This is also true for internal control mechanisms and supervision, which are already part of the electoral administrative system (see Staffing and Recruitment).
Transparency, and holding electoral managers accountable for their actions, are integrity safeguards which do not have to add additional costs. Training is another important integrity factor which is probably already in place, but which could be intensified and extended through out the system.
Cost of Integrity Safeguards
The cost of adding integrity mechanisms to an electoral system will depend upon the security mechanism adopted and the scope and nature of the integrity problem. In general, however, the more extensive the control system, the less discretion there is for electoral managers to pick the most cost effective systems or materials. This is true, for example, in the case of Mexico, where the extensive control mechanisms were deliberately designed to limit the discretion of election administrators.
Having adequate personnel to hold an election is another integrity safeguard, yet personnel costs are likely to be the most significant expense of election administration. There is significant risk to integrity if the number of personnel is insufficient, or is inadequately trained. A related issue is the supervision and control mechanisms that detect and deter fraud and corruption. These require trained personnel with adequate resources.
Safeguard mechanisms on electoral materials can also add to election costs. For example, serial numbers on ballot stubs add to the cost of the printing but can provide a simple and effective mechanism for tracking ballots. However, the more sophisticated the mechanism, the more expensive the cost. The use of watermarked security paper security for ballots is likely to cost more than the use of regular paper. There may also be fewer sources of supply for special paper or other election materials and a longer lead time if the supplies cannot be obtained locally and have to be brought in from elsewhere.
Electoral managers need to balance the cost of sophisticated security systems and items, such as holograms, with the benefits the security item will provide. What is the probability that the problem will actually occur and how will it affect the integrity of the election? How effective is it? Will it increase trust in the integrity of the process? Will it increase the credibility of the process? Can we afford it and is it sustainable over time? Are there cheaper ways of achieving the same result?
The use of new technology can aid integrity through computerized inventories and registration lists that have built in checking and control mechanisms. Initially, new technology can be expensive, but the costs can be recovered if the machines and software are used for subsequent elections. Cost-effective technology is usually adapted for the local conditions, as placing high tech equipment in a location without electricity, maintenance systems or training for the personnel who will use the equipment, can be extremely expensive and unsustainable. Other alternatives to purchasing technology can include:
- leasing the equipment to reduce the risk of obsolescence; or
- using the equipment from other organizations for election purposes as was done in the Indonesian elections in 1999, where a bank's computer network was used to compile vote counts. (In these circumstances, the integrity issues involved in using an outside system and staff must also be taken into consideration).13
Adopting safeguards or new technology to improve integrity can be expensive in the short term because of the increased costs associated with capital expenditures and training, In the long-term, however, if they are appropriate, they can save money.14 The Mexican experience with extensive control mechanisms is that the cost for the initial election with safeguard mechanisms was high, but that the costs were lowered over time. For example, the preliminary budget for the 2000 presidential election was one-third lower in absolute terms than its 1994 budget, while the costs per registered voters were nearly halved. 15
Monitoring election integrity is another important integrity mechanism, and it can also be costly. In Kenya, 28,000 observers covered the 1997 elections. This cost $2 million, mostly funded by donors. This was an expensive operation, but the end result was a general acceptance of the election results.16 Having independent monitors who can organize a credible national election observation and verify the count through a parallel or quick count, can provide savings in the long run, if their participation ensures the acceptance of the election by all parties involved. (See the case study on Domestic Monitoring and Election Integrity in Indonesia.)
Good oversight and enforcement are key factors in maintaining electoral integrity, and require having accessible and effective means to detect and prosecute political and economic corruption. Election security also needs to be ensured so that there is an election environment conducive to free and fair elections. This requires good law enforcement with the means to respond quickly and effectively to election security problems. This usually means good communications, transportation and equipment. Setting up the initial system can be costly, but as with the new technology systems, it can become more cost-effective if law enforcement uses the materials and procedures over a long period of time, and for each subsequent election.
Voter education is another key integrity mechanism. However, as with personnel, when funds are low, voter education programs may be among the first things cut. Electoral managers can seek to find low-cost alternatives to disseminate information, such as negotiating free time for public service broadcasting on radio or tv, regular press conferences and using NonGovernmental Organizations to help spread critical voter education messages. Ensuring voters are knowledgeable about the electoral process and are able to participate in an informed manner is critical to maintaining public and political confidence in the integrity in an electoral system.
Costs of Not Adding Safeguards
The cost of adding integrity mechanisms into the process, and the extent of these mechanisms, must be weighed against the costs of having an election without them. Elections lacking integrity may not be seen as credible, nor the election results as legitimate. There could be a security environment where candidates and voters were afraid to participate. There could be suspicious irregularities that cast a cloud of doubt that the election was free and fair or that the outcome represented the will of the majority of voters.
Having a political party boycott an election because it doubted the freeness or fairness of the process, or having to do extensive re-run elections because of integrity problems, can cost far more money than adopting the safeguard mechanisms that should have prevented them in the first place.
Corruption itself is expensive. Fighting corruption can cost money, but what is the cost of unchecked corruption? Lost productivity by electoral workers? Substandard equipment or materials? Kickback costs on top of purchase prices? Allowing corruption to flourish can add millions of dollars to the cost of an election and, in some cases, can end up jeopardizing the elections themselves. As Robert Klitgaard says:
.. the killer is systemic corruption that destroys the rules of the game. It is one of the principal reasons why the most underdeveloped parts of our planet are that way.17
