Three Options for Producing the Periodic List
There are three major options for producing a periodic list of voters:
- enumeration
- establishment of registration centres
- registration by mail
Enumeration
An enumeration is a door-to-door canvass of all residences in an electoral district for the purpose
of identifying and registering all eligible voters. The election officials who do this may be called
enumerators, registration officers, or some similar title. Their job is to record, through this
door-to-door canvass, the name and other required information of every qualified person in their
area. Normally, they perform their duties in an efficient and impartial manner.
The Enumerator's Manual published by Elections Canada (see Elections Canada - Enumerator's Manual) describes in
detail the role of enumerators for Canadian federal elections.
When planning for an enumeration campaign, it should be expected that enumerators will often
find that voters are not at home when they first call. This may require the enumerator to revisit a
residence. Protocols may used to specify how to identify clearly the number of times and the
hours in which an enumerator is obliged to visit a home before concluding that door-to-door
enumeration is not possible for voters at that address. Also, enumerators will want to know
what to do in this event. Since they are not going to see these electors personally, they may
leave behind information, such as a brochure or pamphlet, outlining procedures the elector may
now follow.
Traditionally, door-to-door enumeration has been a major expenditure in time and resources for
an election. And for many years, it was viewed as having the potential to be a highly accurate
method of voter registration. One of the reasons that Canada has abandoned this approach,
however, at the federal level and in some provinces, has been increasing problems with finding
enumerators, finding voters at home, and having sufficient time to implement appropriate
procedures within the election period to respond to these deficiencies. Regrettably, it is possible
to expend considerable resources, both in time and money, conducting an enumeration and still
produce a voters list that does not meet pre-established performance measures based on
completeness, accuracy and currency. Some countries, such as Britain, close the continuous list
on a particular date. Technically, the British system could be referred to as a permanent list,
rather than a continuous list, since no changes are allowed after the deadline. Of course, this
impacts on its accuracy and completeness at election time.
The most serious challenge in developing a periodic voters list that meets accepted performance
criteria is to ensure that voters who are not at home at the time of the enumeration are included
on the list. The obvious method, noted above, is to leave clear instructions to the voter about
what steps need be taken to ensure inclusion on the list. An alternative procedure would be to
identify a reliable source of information for the voter. This may be a local chief or other civic
official. In addition, one could ask the neighbours whether they are sufficiently familiar with the
voter either to provide the information or to confirm that there has been no change since the last
registration. In some cases, a combination of these approaches may be used.
Further opportunities for additions to the list may be offered through a revision process. In
Canadian federal elections, and in provincial elections in Nova Scotia, Manitoba and
Newfoundland, for example, it is also possible to be added to the voters list on election day
itself. Some countries in Africa also allow electors who are not on the list to vote by what is
known as a tendered ballot on polling day. Their ballots are placed in a ballot envelope and kept
separate from those placed in the ballot box. The Lesotho election law allowed for this, as did
the Zimbabwean law. Some election observers have speculated over whether such ballots
actually make it into the official count.
Registration Centres
If registration is to take place in a face-to-face setting, and door-to-door enumeration is viewed
as impractical or undesirable, an alternative approach is the use of geographically secure
registration centres.
With this method, election officials establish a large number of registration centres in cities,
towns, villages and rural communities which eligible voters may visit to register. The locations
for these centres, however, must be chosen with care. Some logical locations, such as public or
government buildings, schools or religious buildings, may not be inviting to some segments of
the electorate. Some may associate one location with political indoctrination tactics while
others may shun another location for religious reasons. In order to promote the success of the
registration initiative, sites located not only close to population centres but also in secure and
neutralized surroundings tend to be more acceptable and, therefore, more successful in meeting
registration objectives.
Facilitating Registration
Registering a large volume of voters in a short period of time, to ensure the final voters list is as
up-to-date as possible, usually requires a large number of registration centres. In addition,
registration centres impose a burden of effort on voters and, therefore, should be located as
convenient as possible.
Other administrative impediments will likewise discourage registration. Voter registration rules
and regulations should not be designed to impede registration but to facilitate it. If an elector is
required to produce extensive documentation, photos or rare documents such as baptismal
certificates, this could prevent eligible voters from exercising their franchise. On the other hand,
of course, sensible security measures and due diligence will discourage abuses of identification
requirements.
There are a variety of ways to make voter registration centres more practical and convenient.
These include:
- Use mobile registration centres wherever possible, especially in rural areas. This
can reduce the time and distance electors may have to travel to register.
- Establish convenient hours for registration centres. Normally, this means that registration
centres will stay for extended hours, such as later than normal working hours.
- Ensure that sufficient and well-trained staff make registration efficient. This can reduce
waiting time as well as confusion.
- Design the process so voters need only visit the registration centre once. If voters need to
obtain documentation from the registration centre, such as a voter registration card, it should be
available at the time of registration.
- Consider enabling voters to register immediate family members. At times, voter
registration can become inconvenient for families who cannot afford to have more than one
family member take the time away from their employment to register. Registration may be
facilitated by enabling one member of the family to register all other family members. If this
procedure is used, those members of the family visiting the registration centre should be
encouraged to produce copies of the identity documents of their other family members to
safeguard against the inclusion of fictitious names or other false information.
While registration centres may impose relatively high costs, over a relatively short period of
time, these costs may still be less than door-to-door enumeration. This presumes, of course, that
rental costs for registration centres are not usurious. With other factors being equal, however,
normally door-to-door enumeration will be more inclusive than voters lists produced through
registration centres. A comparison of the two methods, therefore, must take into account both
the cost and the performance criteria. This equation, however, may produce controversial
outcomes in different countries and other regional settings.
The Ghana Case Study
In preparation for voter registration in 1995, the Electoral Commission of Ghana produced a
manual that described in some detail the process to be used in registering voters through
registration centres (see Electoral Commission of Ghana - Voter Registration Official's Manual). This manual serves as a useful reference for the design
and implementation of similar registration initiatives.
Registration by Mail
The postal system may prove to be a viable alternative for reducing the high costs associated
with both door-to-door enumeration and remote registration centres. A simple mail-in
campaign, for example, can be used in conjunction with, rather than instead of, either of the
other methods of registration. As usual, one of the obvious challenges with registration by mail
is actually getting the form into the hands of potential voters. Another is getting voters to treat it
as an important document necessary to exercise their vote, rather than a piece of junk mail to
discard. The forms may not be individually addressed for the mail using the periodic list,
because no complete and up-to-date list of electors may exist. (See Voter Roll Maintenance.) When used in
conjunction with other forms of registration, mail-in registration forms can be provided to
electors in the following ways:
- Enumerators may leave a return-mail form, to be completed after one or more unsuccessful
visits to the residence.
- Forms may be provided at the request of voters. This may be appropriate for voters who are
outside the country at the time of registration.
- Forms may be provided when citizens are registering for other activities. Although, this
is a technique more appropriate for use with a continuous voters lists.
One of the innovations of the National Voter Registration Act in the United States, known
popularly as the 'Motor Voter Act', was the inclusion of a voter registration form with drivers
licence application forms, as well as in federal and state social services and welfare offices. The
Motor Voter Act, however, supports a continuous list rather than a periodic list.
An obvious advantage of mail-in registration is that it is relatively inexpensive compared to
door-to-door enumeration or the establishment of a large number of registration centres. One of
the controversies associated with Motor Voter registration in the U.S., however, was the concern
over additional postal expenses. In fact, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) went so far
as to recommend the introduction of a new, and less expensive, class of postage for voter
registration cards. A full mail registration process is possible only in those cases where the
postal authorities are capable of delivering, with great accuracy, adequate numbers of
registration packages to all residential addresses within the jurisdiction.
One of the disadvantages associated with mail-in registration is duplication. Some voters may
send in more than one voter registration form, either mistakenly or intentionally. Intentional
duplication, of course, may constitute fraud, and appropriate measures may need to be in place
to safeguard against it. A system that checks for duplicate names and addresses on the list, for
example, may be indicated, including running such a check each time a new name is placed on
the voters list. In addition, mail-in registration raises questions of verification, in terms of
ensuring that the information provided is accurate and that the registrant in fact is an eligible
voter.
In many instances mail-in registration is used to supplement door-to-door enumeration or
walk-in registration centres. An example of this would be a registration official leaving a
mail-in registration card when the elector is not at home at the time of enumeration. Again, this
can be a more useful method for updating a continuous list or a civil register, where it is used
more often than with a periodic list.
In the spring of 1997, the Ontario Ministry of Finance did a mail-out/mail-in enumeration.
Ostensibly, it was for an assessment, but the form indicated that the information would be used
for the lists of electors for the municipal election. Officials reported that the overall response
rate was considered low. It was approximately 59 percent of the potential response. And this
was after a follow-up mailing. The poorest response came from buildings with many addresses,
such as apartments. A better response was achieved with single family residential
areas--approximately 70 percent of the potential response. The conclusion was that the list
could not be effectively purged of those names which should no longer be listed.
