How Much Do Parliamentary Elections Cost, and How Much Would They Cost with E-Voting?

How Much Do Parliamentary Elections Cost, and How Much Would They Cost with E-Voting?

While we cannot claim or predict the exact cost of electronic elections, in this example, we can demonstrate how election costs would be lower when conducted through e-voting. One significant advantage would be the ability for older individuals, those with limited mobility, or voters in remote areas to participate, which might likely increase voter turnout.

How Much Do Parliamentary Elections Cost, and How Much Would They Cost with E-Voting?

While we cannot claim or predict the exact cost of electronic elections, in this example, we can demonstrate how election costs would be lower when conducted through e-voting. One significant advantage would be the ability for older individuals, those with limited mobility, or voters in remote areas to participate, which might likely increase voter turnout.

Parliamentary elections in Croatia refer to the election of representatives to the Croatian Parliament (Hrvatski sabor). These elections are typically held every four years, corresponding to the term of office for representatives. Since Croatia's independence, seven elections for representatives have been held, with the most recent parliamentary elections occurring in 2016.

Parliamentary elections require a series of actions, expenses, and the efforts of a large number of people to ensure everything runs smoothly. For instance, based on the 2016 election, the report from the State Electoral Commission indicates that the elections cost the Republic of Croatia 122 million Croatian kuna (HRK). Of this total, the majority, 69.7 million HRK, went towards compensation for the work of election bodies.

Material costs for the elections amounted to 25 million HRK. The state spent 5.7 million HRK on ballot papers and other election materials, while 4.2 million HRK was allocated for the setup of polling stations, ballot boxes, office supplies, telecommunications, and space rentals. In 2016, there were 3,854,747 eligible voters. If we divide this number by the total cost of the elections, we can conclude that the elections cost 31 HRK per voter. Considering that only 52.59% of voters participated in the elections, the state paid 66.75 HRK for each voter who cast their vote.

There is growing talk about the introduction of electronic voting. Many countries already use some form of e-voting platform, with Estonia being one of the most successful examples.

What would the introduction of electronic voting change?

Firstly, the cost associated with ballot papers in this case would cease to exist. The ballot paper could be easily entered into the system via an application, eliminating the need for printing. Rental costs for polling stations would be reduced by 80%, taking into account the necessity to provide physical polling places for voters without access to a computer or mobile device. The largest cost, which goes towards compensation for the work of election bodies, would also be halved because there would be no need to engage as many people due to the reduction in polling stations.

The FairVotes e-voting application uses a payment system based on the number of voters. Considering the current cost that the state "pays" per voter, we can conclude that such a system would undoubtedly be more cost-effective. The price also includes telephone support, an unlimited number of questions, ballot creation, test elections, the ability to customize ballots, and many other features. Additional costs would include personnel to input all voters into the system and technical support on election day to ensure everything runs smoothly.

The FairVotes e-voting system is entirely transparent because it uses a two-factor authentication system, meaning that each voter receives an email with a unique link and an SMS message with a code. This allows real-time monitoring (who opened the email, who received the SMS, who voted) and timely response based on this information.

What this calculation demonstrates is that the current costs would be reduced by nearly 80%. While we cannot claim or predict the exact cost of such elections, this example illustrates how costs would certainly be lower. One significant advantage would be the ability for older individuals, those with limited mobility, or voters in remote areas to participate, which might likely increase voter turnout.

Although no one has yet seriously initiated the question of electronic voting, it will be interesting to see what the future holds.