The Cost of Democracy
Democracy has a price: the cost of periodic elections. The Australian Electoral Commission
calculated the 1996 federal elections cost A $4.76 for each of the 11,655,190 voters.4
The 1995 elections in the Commonwealth of Dominica cost U.S. $10.11 for each of the
37,187 voters.5 While every nation likes to give international publicity to its democratic
credentials, of which free and fair elections are an integral part, full-scale elections do not come
cheaply, particularly if they are accompanied by extensive voter registration and voter education
campaigns. Because someone has to meet the costs of every electoral process, an overall budget
needs to be prepared at an early stage and authority obtained for the expenditure involved.
Overview
Electoral managers are best at managing elections, while staff who are properly trained in accounts
and financial issues are better at preparing budgets and controlling costs. Working together, these
professionals can prepare a realistic overall budget for the electoral process and set up adequate
systems to monitor costs. With a budget and a monitoring system in place, overspending can be
recognised and dealt with in a timely manner, whether through cutbacks elsewhere or a request for
supplemental funding.
If a new system, whether for financial management or another process, is to be considered, be
aware that introducing any major new system can entail high initial costs. It is therefore crucial to
prepare proper budget estimates, including funds for staff training and system testing. Others who
may have implemented a similar system will be able to share their experiences with you, including
ideas on how to keep costs to a minimum.
While some countries go to great lengths to keep up with or surpass each other in their level of
technological sophistication, keep in mind that simple processes cost less. Your goal should be to
deliver an election that meets the needs of your country within the means at your disposal. If there
is not a demand for sophisticated technology or its benefits, investing in such technology will likely
be seen as wasteful. Keep in mind also the needs and capability of the end users; temporary staff
running a voting station may not be able to use a system that seems easy for the full-time
professional staff at headquarters, in which case investing in that system could be an enormous
waste of resources.
At the end of the process, it is helpful to review all costs, taking special note of areas that cost
more than anticipated and those that cost less. In reviewing those that cost more, you and your
staff may be able to develop simpler procedures that would reduce the costs. This is the best time
to begin developing a budget for the next election. Briefing the legislators who are responsible for
overseeing your budget on the results of your post-election review and on your plans for reducing
certain costs for the next election can make them more receptive to cost increases or even
long-term investment plans in other areas.
Staff
Because electoral work is staff intensive, staff are likely to be the largest cost in any election.
The more complex the process, the greater the number of staff required (and cost) and the more
extensive (and costly) will be the training process. The section on staff, Personnel Appointment and Training, contains a
number of suggestions for minimising poll worker costs. Again, the message is that simple
processes reduce costs.
Equipment and Supplies
Electoral materials can be costly. Top-quality watermarked ballot papers are a good example. It
is critically important to evaluate any feature that adds to an item's cost and make a positive
determination whether that feature is needed. In the case of watermarked ballot papers, if
watermarks were introduced into an electoral process elsewhere in order to deter a particular type
of fraud, using watermarks in a situation where that type of fraud would be impossible would be
wasteful.
Because elections do not happen every week, there is often a considerable cost involved in storage
and recovery. More and more electoral commissions are using cardboard ballot boxes and
cardboard voting screens, as they are easy to transport and erect, the delivery costs are relatively
low, and when the election is over, the cardboard is recycled, eliminating storage costs. In cases
where low- (or no-) cost storage is available, though, durable equipment may be a more
cost-effective solution in the long term. It is important to evaluate the options and make an
informed choice.
Automation
Introducing automation to elections can have major benefits in terms of eliminating the boredom
of performing repetitive tasks, increasing the speed of results tabulation, or facilitating access to
information. But again it can rapidly increase election costs in the short term; budgets of tens of
millions of dollars to introduce nationwide computerised election systems are common. The
advantages of automation can, in certain circumstances, greatly outweigh the cost considerations,
and a properly planned system of automation will pay for itself and introduce greater quality and
consistency.
When reviewing plans for automation projects, it is important to recognise that a new system
can be implemented one step at a time as funds become available. There is no need to automate
the entire electoral process in one leap. Voter registration often is the first element to be
automated, because it involves a repetitive process of assembly and printing of standard data that is
much easier if automated. There are currently numerous automated voter registration systems, so
costs (including those necessary for adapting an existing system to your particular circumstances)
can be compared and evaluated.
Touch-screen, or Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting systems, with electronic transmission
of results to a centre where they are instantly collated and displayed, are somewhat less common
and much more expensive than simpler, more traditional systems, most of which involve the
reading of marked or punched paper ballots. Many of the standard administrative functions
(accounting, payroll, purchasing, distribution) also can be automated.
Quality
The best is not necessarily the most expensive. In fact, the opposite is closer to the truth in most
cases; the best is the least expensive that will meet the needs of the country. Permanent electoral
commissions have the opportunity between elections to research and compare the costs of
alternative processes. The section on ballot papers (see Development of ballots, forms and procedures) shows many options for
different designs and processes. The key to controlling costs is to select the correct system but to
keep the process simple.
