The Periodic Voters List
The periodic register, or periodic list, of voters is the result of election administration
authorities developing a new list of eligible voters prior to each election. This process often
occurs (although not always) in the period immediately preceding an election. In some
jurisdictions, such as in the Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia and Manitoba, the voters list is
prepared using an enumeration method during the period of the election campaign. In other
instances, such as in Uganda, the voters list is drawn up well in advance of the election. Voter
registration through a periodic voters list, while expensive in an absolute sense, tends to be
relatively inexpensive compared to either the continuous register or the civil registry. Although
more money is spent as a one-time cost for that electoral event, the ongoing maintenance costs
of a continuous list tend to be higher while the cost of the periodic list is prorated over the
period between elections.
The cost equations for the various methods of voter registration, however, are never simple and
straightforward, since many other factors have an important bearing on overall costs. Costs
related to continuous lists, for example, are affected by the degree of ongoing maintenance, such
the frequency of updating information. One such factor would be whether the form of
government is federal or unitary, and if federal, whether cost savings may accrue from the
sharing of registration costs with other levels of government. Where national and local
governments hold elections simultaneously, as in the United States, the same voters list can be
used for each level of government, using the periodic list, continuous register or civil register.
Where the two levels of government have their elections on separate electoral calendars, such as
in Canada, efficiencies may result from using a continuous register and sharing information
across the federal system. To make this effective, however, the differing levels of electoral
administration must consider using identical electoral geography in order to reduce disparities.
Time Considerations
The time it takes to prepare a periodic list varies widely from one occasion to another. The
Canadian Province of Ontario exemplifies one extreme. The election authority in Ontario was
able to enumerate, or name one by one, almost six million electors in a four day period at the
start of the last election campaign.
The major time consideration in the use of a periodic list usually is the procedure required to
come in direct contact with each eligible voter, or with someone deemed a reliable source of
information for each voter. Furthermore, the election authority must evaluate the administrative
capacity required either to initiate such contact with the electorate, as in a door-to-door
enumeration, or to facilitate the contact from the eligible voter to the election authority, as in
using a registration centre or registration by mail.
The periodic list system has been used extensively throughout Africa as well as in federal
elections in Canada until the 1997 general election. A number of Canadian provinces continue
to use a periodic list and enumeration. The Province of British Columbia maintains a
continuous list but still uses enumeration as one of the means for verifying that list.
When to Use a Periodic List
The periodic list method of voter registration may be particularly useful where the election
administration infrastructure is not sufficiently developed to maintain a continuous list. This
may be the case, for example, where population mobility is high. The periodic list may be more
appropriate where there is a particular aversion to the government maintaining
continuously-updated lists of citizens. In addition, periodic lists are used in some countries,
along with voter enumerations, when the state wishes to retain the initiative in voter registration
instead of placing the onus on the electorate.
Self-Initiated or State-Initiated Registration
Voter registration procedures may be designed on the premise that voters must take the initiative
to register themselves in exercising their democratic rights. Alternatively, registration may be
designed to place that responsibility in the hands of the government, through the election
authority. Of these two systems of registration, one would expect a higher rate of registration
where the state takes the initiative to register all eligible citizens. Such a system should
minimize systemic distortion of the registered electorate, since the election authority is charged
with attempting to contact all voters. Their ability to do this often depends on the
communications resources available in the country. Where registration is self-initiated, by
contrast, voters with less interest in the election, and typically those with lower socioeconomic
status, are less likely to register. All other things being equal, state-initiated registration would
likely be the more expensive of the two methods.
Voluntary or Mandatory Inclusion
Two other key considerations in preparing periodic voters lists are whether to allow voluntary
inclusion of voters on the list or to make inclusion on the list mandatory. This distinction should
not be confused with the difference between a self-initiated or state-initiated registration. Both
self-initiated and state-initiated registration may be conducted using either the voluntary or
mandatory inclusion method. Self-initiated registration with voluntary inclusion, a system that
has been used by many states in the United States for many years, often produces relatively low
rates of registration. Higher rates of registration are generated when registration is self-initiated
but mandatory. This method is employed more often in civil registries than with periodic lists.
State-initiated registration with voluntary inclusion can produce relatively high levels of
registration, provided, of course, that the state-initiated registration procedures are sufficiently
comprehensive. There have been concerns voiced in some places that use this system, however,
that door-to-door enumerations with voluntary inclusion are producing voters lists of declining
quality. Difficulties may arise trying to find voters at home during enumeration visits, for
instance, or gaining access to some apartment complexes, and even with voters unwilling to
answer their doors. For such reasons, the Canadian Province of Alberta which recently
converted to a continuous list. State-initiated registration using mandatory inclusion also is used
less often in a periodic list than in other registration methods, such as a continuous list.
Australia has many of the characteristics of such a system, and the registration rate is very high.
