A Costly Endeavour
The production of a voters list is among the most costly elements of election administration.
When using periodic voters lists, these costs are borne within a relatively short period of time,
rather than being spread throughout the full election cycle, as with the continuous and civil
registers. The costs involved in the generation of a periodic list may be a very noticeable
element of the overall election costs. If they are compared, however, against the maintenance
costs of a continuous register, they may not appear as remarkable.
Costs Highly Variable
It is difficult to provide an overall country-by-country comparison of the costs of voter
registration for those countries using the periodic voters list, since the manner in which the
budgets are presented, and the types of expenses included under voter registration, vary
considerably. It is possible, however, to examine the experience of several countries to gain an
impression of the scope that could be anticipated.
The Canadian Case
The 1997 enumeration marked the last time a national enumeration would take place for a
federal election in Canada. The election authority, Elections Canada, moved to the adoption of a
national Register of Electors. One of the principle reasons for this change, although certainly
not the only reason, was budgetary. The Register of Electors was seen as having the potential
for significant cost savings when compared to an enumeration for each electoral event. Before
jumping to the conclusion that a continuous list is always less costly than a periodic list (an
erroneous generalization), however, it is important to realize that cost reductions cannot be
examined in isolation. The estimate for cost reductions in Canada was based on Elections
Canada obtaining data from other federal sources, as well as from provincial sources such as
local voters lists. Costs were associated with the collection of this data, but the cost efficiencies
arise through the sharing of the data and eliminating duplication of effort.
Enumeration or Register of Electors: A Cost Comparison
The business case made for the adoption of a continuous list at Elections Canada was based on
a comparison of costs for the enumeration system, or periodic list, with the continuous register
of electors. They found that developing a voters list by enumeration would cost CDN $70.5
million (US $50.3 million) compared to CDN $71.3 million (US $50.9 million) for the first use
of the continuous register of electors. In the subsequent electoral event, the cost of enumeration
was estimated at CDN $78.5 million (US $56.0 million) compared with only CDN $39.3 million
(US $28.1 million) for the continuous list of electors, a savings of almost CDN $40 million for
each subsequent electoral event.63 In his Report of the 1997 federal election, the Chief
Electoral Officer revised this estimate, to a cost savings of CDN $30 million per electoral
event.64 Since Elections Canada registered a total of 18.8 million voters in 1997, the
total cost per elector for the enumeration was CDN $3.75 (US $2.68). This figure represents the
cost of enumeration using door-to-door canvassing in a country of vast size and relatively sparse
population over much of its territory. The Canadian case is also characterized by a very well
developed central election authority, and a high degree of computerization in its registration
process (implemented in 1992), including computer software specifically designed by Elections
Canada for the production of the preliminary and final lists of voters.
The Togo Case
In 1992, the International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES) sent a team to Togo for a
pre-election assessment. The budget for the election is attached (see Togo - Election Budget).
Note that of the total budget for the entire election process, including the pre-election
development of the voters list and all other election-related expenses, was US $5.8 million.
Fully US $1.5 million--or 26 percent of the budget--was being spent on developing the voters
list. An additional US $1.3 million--22 percent of the budget-- was allocated for the purchase of
a computer system, one of the main functions of which was to assist in the registration process.
These two components alone, both for voter registration, comprised almost half--48 percent--of
the total expenditures for the election.64
Controlling Costs
Costs of the voter registration initiative can easily escalate to consume larger and larger parts of
the total election budget. Much of the costs associated with registration will be for items used
by the local election registration offices yet will be paid by the central election authority. These
include such essentials as:
- office rental
- office equipment
- stationery
- recruitment of staff
- training for all staff
- wages and expenses (especially travel) for staff
- materials used in registration (including forms, registration cards, identification badges for
staff)
- production of the voter identification cards (including photographers, film, cameras,
backdrop, plastic laminate)
- communications (phone, fax, postal services)
Placing Ceilings on Costs
The central election authority is generally in a good position to control the costs of registration
by imposing ceilings on salaries, hours of employment and materials. It can also impose
constraints on the total size and quality of office space and equipment leased or purchased for
the office, and provide regulations on what items are considered eligible expenses.
In Ontario, the Schedule of Fees and Expenses, a regulation under the Election Act, establishes
the fees payable for the functions defined as part of the enumeration, the revision and printing of
the lists of electors.
Factors Contributing to High Costs
Factors that tend to drive up the cost of the registration initiative include:
- Use of registration cards, especially photo-identification cards. Although the cost of this
item tends to be high, the improvement in quality through better identification of voters that
results may make this cost a reasonable expenditure, albeit one that is much more commonly
used for the continuous voters list. Security features in voter registration cards should contain
only those elements that contribute significantly to the integrity of the card and the voters list.
Election authorities may sometimes fall into a vendor's trap of adding security features that are
only marginally effective. Each security feature adds to the cost of the card.
- Low population density. Obviously beyond the control of the election authority, this may
require a larger number of enumerators, polling divisions and registration centres. A key
principle guiding registration should be that voters not bear unnecessarily high costs, including
costs of transportation or time away from work, in order to register to vote. It is incumbent upon
the election administration authority, then, to ease the burden of registration, even if this means
setting up a relatively large number of registration centres or using mobile registration centres.
This principle should be borne in mind whether the onus of registration is placed on the voter or
the state.
- Length of registration drive. The longer the registration period, the more costly it becomes.
Costs may be controlled not only by setting a relatively shorter registration period, but also by
using a larger number of registration centres and personnel.
- The use of non-standard materials. Whenever the materials used in the registration drive are
not consistent with polling standards (where applicable), the costs of production may increase.
When producing voter registration cards, for example, it may be necessary to determine the size
and type of card that is appropriate for the type of laminating equipment to be used. Normally, it
is advisable to get estimates for the total card production package at the outset, to ensure that the
purchase of irregular stock or photographic slides not compatible with the laminating equipment
does not occur.
