Similarity of Initial Registration between Continuous List and Periodic List
The initial registration drive for a continuous list of voters is similar to the procedures used in
compiling a periodic voters list. The key difference is that after the initial registration, the
continuous list uses the data gathered as the backbone, focussing subsequently on methods of
verifying the accuracy of the data and updating the list on a regular basis. The collection of
information can make the maintenance effort easier and is therefore also important. For
example,
it is necessary to have unique identifiers, such as a birth date or identity number, in order to
verify
the record, because it is common to find more than one person with the same name.
In contrast, the periodic list is developed anew at each election, albeit sometimes using
information
from past lists. But, there is no standing voters list in the periodic list system, as there is with a
continuous list.
With a continuous list, after the initial mass registration, the number of registration sites can be
scaled back to a smaller number that can be kept open regularly to enable people to register or
update their registration. However, the registration centres that often exist with continuous lists
is
one of the significant cost components of such a system. New, electronic list maintenance
methods, using a variety of data sources, allow election officials to avoid this costly
infrastructure.
This approach also begins to resemble a civil register procedure.
The registration centres normally operate at a district or county level. However, when an
election
is called, the election authority may want to increase the number of registration sites or have
mobile registration sites that visit low-registration areas, as identified from previous registration
initiatives. The existence of a continuous list should enable the election authority to develop
good
measures of performance (based on currency, completeness, and accuracy), and to systematically
attempt to improve the performance of the system.
The Timeliness of Continuous Lists
It is possible for a continuous voters list to become out of date. Developing performance
measures
on such things as the currency of the voters list will enable the identification of shortcomings and
provide direction in ways to improve performance.
Regarding currency, for example, in Britain the deadline for submitting changes to the list is in
the
fall, and the preliminary voters list is published at the end of November each year. This is then
followed by a period in which claims and objections are presented, and the final voters list is
published 15 February. This list remains in effect from 16 February of that year until 15
February
of the following year, and voters who are not on the list in their current electoral district are not
able to vote in that district, a classic case of administrative deprivation of the right to vote. Thus,
according to Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, the voters list is 'already four months out of date when it first comes into force each February and more than 16 months out of date on its last day.'73
When an election is held, the voters list that came into force the previous 15 February is the one
that identifies eligible voters and the district (and voting site) in which they may vote. Thus,
although the system is referred to as a continuous list, it is one that provides a yearly snapshot of
the electorate and defines voter eligibility at the time the snapshot was taken, rather than
continuously during the year. The British example is something of a hybrid between a periodic
and a continuous list.
Throughout the United States, the deadline for registration is thirty days before an election, and
in
most jurisdictions the lists must be produced no later than two weeks before the election.
When planning an initial registration for a continuous list, similar factors should be considered as
when developing a periodic list, which are described in Logistics.
