The cost of elections: the effects of public sector austerity on electoral integrity and voter engagement

Abstract

Concerns have been raised that insufficient funding has been affecting the delivery of elections in many countries. This paper presents a case study of England and Wales from 2010–2016. It demonstrates that many local authorities saw major real terms cuts and were increasingly over-budget. Those subject to cuts were less likely to undertake public engagement activities. State efforts to encourage voter participation may therefore be a casualty of austerity

Making Every Vote Count: The Important Role of Managerial Capacity in Achieving Better Election Administration Outcomes

“…The level of capacity in election administration is clearly not just a U.S. issue (e.g., James and Jervier ). Indeed, while confusion abounded about where European Union expatriates should vote in a European Parliament election following Brexit, there were news media reports that officials did not release sufficient funding for local commissions to ensure the expatriates could vote.…”

Evaluating the Recessionary Impact on Election Administration Budgeting and Spending

“…Another important thing to note is that the Caltech-MIT study used data from 2000, which was an especially good economic time, and the Mohr et al study used recent data that included a period just following a recession. If election administration is influenced by economic cycles as was found in Great Britain (James & Jervier, 2017), this may further explain the cost estimate difference. Therefore, this research seeks to address the fundamental research question: do economic cycles influence election administration budget, spending, and budget variances?…”

Electoral integrity – The winner takes it all? Evidence from three British general elections

“…Similarly, Clark (2015: 90) highlights that many of the investigations into potential electoral mismanagement at the 2010 general election were in large, densely populated cities. Coupled with this, more densely populated areas present greater challenges for electoral administrators, and it impacts negatively on the completeness and health of the electoral register (Clark, 2017: 475; James and Jervier, 2017: 466).…”

“…Two further factors are the levels of ethnic diversity and residential mobility, both of which are associated with more urban environments and issues of electoral integrity. Alvarez and Boehmke (2008: 106–107) show, for example, that electoral fraud is higher in more ethnically diverse parts on California, while the quality of election management in the United Kingdom is challenged in areas of higher ethnic diversity – particularly where groups are hard to reach (Clark, 2017: 477; James and Jervier, 2017: 466). Similarly, Hill et al (2017: 774) note that of the 18 local authorities areas deemed to be at risk of electoral fraud by the Electoral Commission, all but one were in areas with high ethnic minority populations.…”

“…Residential mobility may also impact upon electoral integrity. James and Jervier (2017: 465–466), for example, show that the completeness of the electoral register tends to be lower in areas where there is a larger private rental sector, reflecting the lower levels of residential mobility among residents who own their own homes, while the Electoral Commission (2014: 16) notes that areas vulnerable to electoral fraud are often characterised by a transient population and a high number of multiple occupancy houses. Certainly, all three urban characteristics (population density, level of ethnic diversity and size of the rented housing sector) are regularly associated with lower levels of electoral turnout (Denver, 2010, 2015, 2018).…”