 |
| Source: Technologyreview.com |
Any
sort of government or public expenditure is going to be met with a significant
challenge. On the one hand, the expenditure has to adequately address a public
need of some sort. This could be the construction of a new bridge, providing
commuters with a faster and more direct way to get across the city. On the
other hand, government funds are anything but unlimited and, thus, the cost of
any project must be kept under control. This kind of balance must also be
considered when it comes to any referendum or election, in addition to concerns
about accessibility, fairness, participation and security.
One
of the many potential benefits of changing from a more traditional paper-based
ballot to an election that uses e-voting technology is that the latter can save
the government a significant amount of money. There are some initial costs
involved in purchasing the e-voting equipment and there are costs in
maintaining them, but taken as a whole, e-voting is more cost-effective than
its pure paper-based counterpart. This cost savings has been demonstrated in
many places around the world.
For
example, an election was recently conducted by the Irish Medical Council (IMC)
and it was outsourced to Electoral Reform Services of the United Kingdom. The
final figures are still being calculated, but a spokesperson for the IMC has
stated that this election saved
the Council approximately €10,000 (over $13,000 US). This savings was
secured in the costs that would have otherwise been involved with the printing
of paper ballots and the associated postage for mailing them out.
In
addition to the cost savings involved in printing and postage, the IMC
spokesperson said that the Council also saved money compared to its previous
election in 2008 because that election involved "significant staff
resourcing" to count all the ballots. With the e-voting technology in
place, the counting of the ballots was far more efficient, expedient and
cost-effective. There are staffing costs that must be considered for sorting
ballots, counting ballots, and other administrative duties. If the paper
ballots had to be mailed out, that would be another area in terms of cost for
staffing that is saved because of e-voting technology. There are many hidden
costs to manual elections.
Even
in the relatively small town of Cobourg, located a little over one hour away
from Toronto in Canada, significant cost savings were enjoyed in its 2010
municipal election. This election was completely paperless, allowing voters to
cast their ballots either online or via telephone. For voters who did not have
access to a phone or the Internet, e-voting booths were set up at two polling
places in the town.
The
total cost of holding the 2010 election was $52,460. By contrast, the election
in 2006, which used paper ballots, cost the town almost $90,000. What this
means is that by switching to e-voting, the town of Cobourg saved
well over $35,000. A similar calculation was done for the town of
Meaford--also in Ontario, Canada--and the
projected savings were $25,000. These are two relatively small towns in
Canada, so it is possible to see how these savings could be further amplified
in large cities.
E-voting is certainly not without its share of challenges, but examples like those seen in Ireland and Canada clearly illustrate that e-voting can provide significant cost savings for jurisdictions that are willing to switch to automated elections.
