2026 flexible voting pilots evaluation

Those who used flexible voting options made up a relatively small proportion of overall turnout  

A relatively small proportion of voters (0.4 – 2.4%) chose to cast their vote early or vote in the centralised hub.  

In the early voting pilots, the proportion of voters who chose to vote flexibly was lowest in Cambridge, where 1.7% of registered voters chose to vote in the hub. It was highest in North Hertfordshire, where 2.4% of registered voters chose to vote in one of the early voting hubs.  

The level of hub turnout as a proportion of overall turnout was higher compared to the most recent early voting pilots in Wales in 2022. In the pilots held at local elections in England in 2007, the proportions ranged from 0.5 – 7.0%. These previous results are not directly comparable with this current set of pilots, as the specific approaches being piloted varied (with a varying number of days of early voting and opening hours).  

In the Milton Keynes pilot, 0.4% of registered voters cast their vote at the central hub. 

Delays in formal confirmation of the pilot scheme made the planning and set up difficult for participating local authorities

The government did not confirm that the pilots would go ahead until February 2026. Local authorities who had applied to run pilots were told they would receive confirmation by November 2025. However, because of uncertainty at the time from the government about local government reorganisation and elections being postponed, the government did not confirm until February 2026. As a result, seven local authorities who had initially applied to take part in the pilot scheme dropped out.

The delay in confirmation of the pilot scheme made the planning and set up process challenging for participating local authorities, as the delays cut into planning and preparation time.  

While the government assured local authorities that they would not be responsible for any costs if the pilot scheme was cancelled, some did not want to book venues without confirmation. It was then challenging to find venues for the hubs at shorter notice.

Local authorities also received the grant funding relatively late and were receiving invoices from suppliers without confirmed funding. Some of the procurement processes had to be carried out more quickly than expected. Local authorities would have preferred to receive confirmation of the pilot scheme in September 2025 to allow enough time for planning.  

Electoral services teams tried to raise awareness of the pilot scheme, but some were worried about appearing to be trying to influence the election  

Some of the electoral administrators in the pilot said that they were nervous about being too aggressive in their efforts to raise awareness of the pilots, in case they were seen to be trying to influence the election in some way. In addition, the electoral services team in Milton Keynes was worried that the venue might not have enough space for voters, polling station desks and observers, given the high numbers of expected observers. The team felt they had to balance raising awareness of the pilot with making sure the venue did not become overcrowded.

Some electoral administrators felt that not enough was done to publicise the pilots. Some felt that more communications support from within the local council would have been useful. If flexible voting measures are piloted again or rolled out as business-as-usual, several electoral administrators said they felt that campaign support from The Electoral Commission would be helpful, with early coordination between piloting local authorities and our campaigns team.

Across the piloting local authorities, Returning Officers and their teams put additional measures in place to make the voting hubs accessible  

Returning Officers put in place several additional accessibility measures in the early voting hubs and centralised voting hub. On a normal polling day, they would only be able to provide these on request. Additional measures included:

• Cambridge, Milton Keynes and Tunbridge Wells had McGonagle audio voting devices available on demand in the early voting hubs and centralised voting hub. Cambridge and Milton Keynes also had Braille ballot papers in the hubs.  
• Cambridge publicised when the busiest voting hours would be, for those wanting to vote at quieter times, which they also plan to do in all future elections.  
• Cambridge also invested in some portable hearing loop devices for the hubs, which they can use in the future at any polling stations that don’t already have hearing loops on site.  
• North Hertfordshire purchased some additional outdoor signage for the early voting hubs to improve visibility and reading gel overlays to use with the ballot paper.  

As a unitary authority, Milton Keynes was able to access the sight loss register from adult social care to identify those with visual impairments who were not already registered to vote. A data-matching exercise was carried out between the sight loss register and the electoral register. Approximately 400 individuals were already registered to vote, and around 100 were already postal voters. The authorities contacted the remaining 300 registered electors to let them know about the accessible voting options available, including the additional accessibility measures provided at the central voting hub.  

However, on polling day in Milton Keynes, nobody requested to use a McGonagle audio voting device or Braille ballot paper. The Returning Officer and their team thought that in future, they need to engage with under-registered groups consistently throughout the year to encourage participation. They do not think that brief periods of engagement in the run up to elections or the canvass are enough to increase participation among under-registered and under-represented groups.  

The use of digital registers was important to the smooth running of the pilots

Cambridge, North Hertfordshire and Tunbridge Wells worked with the supplier Modern Democracy, while Milton Keynes worked with Civica to supply digital registers. Both suppliers used a system which provides digital registers in polling stations on tablets. This allows for people to be marked as having voted and for registers for any area within the local authority to be accessed via a single device.  

This was the first time any of the piloting local authorities had used digital registers, except for Tunbridge Wells who had used them for the first time at the local all-out elections in May 2024.  

In theory, the use of digital registers removed the need for large paper-based copies of the full register to be held in each hub. It allowed for individual voters to be quickly found on the register when they came to collect a ballot paper. The pilot authorities chose to keep a paper register at the hubs as a backup measure, in case the tablets did not work properly. This also allowed Returning Officers to efficiently manage one of the challenges that comes with multiple polling days and a centralised hub – the risk of double voting (an elector attempting to vote more than once). There was only one recorded incident of attempted double voting across all participating local authorities. The local authority looked at the time stamps on the records, which were only a few seconds apart, which led them to believe it was an accidental rescan of a poll card rather than an attempt at double voting.

Cambridge wanted to test the connectivity between the Modern Democracy tablets and their own EMS supplier Idox in future., The authority wanted to make sure that different suppliers’ products could effectively ‘talk’ to each other. The authority also wanted to make sure that paper polling registers could easily be produced, with early voters marked off already, in case of a technical failure.

In general, the digital registers worked well, and electoral administrators had positive experiences of using them. They reduced the workload on polling station staff and provided electoral services teams with a live dashboard on turnout in the pilot hubs. In addition, the digital registers provided an overview of footfall across polling stations, so electoral services teams were able to target support to the busiest polling stations.  

The digital registers also made the verification and count process easier. Polling station staff did not have to manually record in the Corresponding Number List which ballots were issued. The technology did this, removing the potential for human error. That said, there are some lessons to be drawn from the pilots.

Strong Wi-Fi and 5g was key to the functioning of the tablets

Local authorities ensured that there was strong Wi-Fi at voting hubs and tested the connectivity before voting days. That said, there were some issues with the connectivity on polling day in Milton Keynes in normal polling stations. Some polling station staff had to resort to using paper registers as a contingency plan and returned to using the tablets when the Wi-Fi connection was restored. Although the tablets worked well in North Hertfordshire, the Returning Officer was concerned about using them in rural areas if they were to become standard practice. This is because reliable 5G coverage can be limited in more remote locations.

Local authorities may need to adapt their expectations on how easily they can integrate the digital registers with their existing electoral management software

Local authorities generally had positive feedback about the suppliers of the digital registers. However, some felt that the solution was too prescriptive and they would have liked to work more closely with the supplier to develop a product that met the local authority’s needs. That said, Tunbridge Wells (who had used the tablets before) appreciated that the format stayed the same year on year, making it easier to train people to use the tablets. For the digital registers to work well in future, local authorities need to feel confident that the digital solution will work for them. They must also be willing to adapt their own processes where needed, to fit the tablets’ functionalities.  

Some Returning Officers would like legislative change to support the wider or more regular use of digital registers

While most local authorities chose to use the digital registers on early voting days and normal polling day, Cambridge only used the digital registers on early voting days. This was because the team did not feel confident in the backup plan should the digital registers fail on normal polling day. Before they use digital registers for all elections, they want specific legislation setting out the process to be followed if there is a technical failure.  

Additional resources are required in the planning and set up and on polling day

Although the digital registers significantly reduced the workload for polling station staff on voting days and during the verification process, setting up the digital registers required a lot of resource. Local authorities had to organise training for polling station staff and support staff on voting days. The team in Milton Keynes received multiple calls on polling day from polling station staff calling in with technical queries. The electoral services team had to set up a separate technical line to manage the volume of calls. Using the tablets also required electoral services teams to organise testing and training days, and to provide data to the supplier and central government.

Returning Officers felt that successful delivery of the pilots hinged on the skills and experience of their electoral services teams  

Returning Officers in piloting local authorities emphasised that the successful delivery of the pilots was due to the skills and experience of their teams. They felt confident in their teams’ abilities to deliver elections as normal and felt that the pilots offered a valuable opportunity to test out innovative ways of delivering local elections. Returning Officers also said that they would not have applied to take part in the pilot scheme if they did not have confidence in the experience and competence of their teams.  

Local authorities were generally positive about the pilot scheme but delivering the pilots required significant resources for planning and implementation  

Participating local authorities were very positive about the pilot scheme and keen to participate in future pilots. However, all Returning Officers said that significant additional resource was required to deliver the pilots, which they would have struggled to find without the funding from central government.  

Those piloting early voting highlighted that delivering the early voting hubs also cut into the time for normal election day preparation. This echoes findings from the 2022 Welsh pilots, in which administrators reported that delivering early voting days on Tuesday or Wednesday before normal polling day on Thursday brought additional pressures and reduced the time available to prepare for normal polling day. In these set of pilots, there was a gap of at least a few days between early voting days and normal polling day, but Returning Officers still felt that the pilots cut into preparation time for normal polling day.  

All polling station staff received training from the suppliers on using the tablets, which was reported to be useful, particularly the scenario testing in a mock polling station. That said, managing different ballot books with ballot papers from all the different wards was challenging for some polling station staff. Additional training on managing this process would have been helpful.

Milton Keynes led the procurement process for their software supplier, which was time consuming. Additional time was also spent briefing polling station staff and answering technical queries about the tablets on polling day. The electoral services team in Tunbridge Wells highlighted that the preparation around the electoral management software (EMS) systems was very resource intensive. It was not linked to their legacy system and had to be manually set up. This was the same with the hub documentation and printing ballot box labels. This would ordinarily have been automated for all polling stations, but the hubs required a manual solution.  

In addition, some electoral administrators highlighted that there were only a limited number of specialist suppliers in the market, such as ballot paper print companies. While the small number of piloting authorities meant that there were no major procurement issues, some electoral administrators were concerned about the ability of printers to produce a large number of extra ballot papers in a short timeframe for early voting if early voting was to be adopted on a larger scale.  

Venues were chosen based on several different considerations

Local authorities considered several factors considered when choosing the location of the early voting hubs and the centralised voting hub.

Availability

The main consideration when selecting the venues to host the voting hubs was availability. In Milton Keynes, the location of the centralised voting hub was not where electoral services team had originally chosen, as the unit they had initially selected was not available. However, they felt that the venue they chose worked very well in the end. Some Returning Officers across the pilot areas also found it challenging to find venues that were available for the full period required.

Location

Returning Officers in early voting hub pilot areas wanted venues that were geographically spread out to serve voters from all wards. Most venues selected for early voting hubs were already polling stations and already had the necessary infrastructure in place. They also wanted to have one early voting hub in a central location as well as hubs in more remote areas. In Tunbridge Wells, the team decided to only have one hub in the town of Tunbridge Wells (Royal Victoria Place). While it is the biggest town in the borough, it is not geographically central and there was concern that voters living in rural areas would not be able to easily a reach a hub in Tunbridge Wells. For the centralised voting hub in Milton Keynes, the Returning Officer wanted a venue with a central location that would capture maximum footfall, so choosing a shopping centre in the centre of Milton Keynes felt like a logical choice. The Milton Keynes team suggested that future pilots involve opening centralised hubs on weekends or over multiple days, when footfall is highest, to work out whether this increases participation among younger and under-represented voters.

Size of the venue

Each venue needed enough space for polling station desks, voters and observers. This was difficult for Returning Officers to judge, as the size of turnout was unknown. Returning Officers had to estimate expected turnout and select venues accordingly. While there were no major issues with the size of any of the venues, had there been higher turnout or more candidates and tellers present at the hubs, some hubs would not have been large enough to accommodate everyone.  

Accessibility

The venues needed to be fully accessible. They needed wheelchair access, measures in place to support blind or visually impaired voters, and good transport links.  

In general, Returning Officers valued the freedom to tailor flexible voting arrangements to local needs and favoured a non-prescriptive approach in any wider roll-out. However, allowing significant local discretion could lead to variation in the availability and accessibility of flexible voting measures, risking unequal access for voters depending on where they live.

The early verification process and count went smoothly with no major issues  

In general, the early verification process and count for the early voting hubs went smoothly, as did the verification and count for the centralised voting hub. While North Hertfordshire and Tunbridge Wells chose to verify their early ballots at the end of each early voting day, Cambridge decided to verify all early ballots after the close of poll on normal polling day. This decision was made to manage limited staffing resources, as well as to ensure that political observers were able to attend the verification process.  

The digital registers helped the verification process, as polling station staff did not have to manually record, in the Corresponding Number List, which ballot papers were issued. When a voter was given a ballot paper, they were marked as having voted in the digital register and the Corresponding Number List was automatically updated to show that the ballot paper with that number had been issued.

That said, Tunbridge Wells had some issues with the storage of ballot papers.  Additional ballot papers were printed for the pilot and there was no space in the council offices to store all the additional ballot papers between the verification and count process. Tunbridge Wells had printed out almost 100,000 ballot papers for use across the early voting hubs and had to organise overnight storage at a storage unit at an additional cost. It was challenging to balance having enough ballot papers, so that they did not run out, and printing too many. Finding a location that was both secure and large enough to store the ballot papers was also challenging.  

Returning Officers suggested that in future, printing ballot papers on demand could help reduce these risks. If ballot papers were produced as needed, Returning Officers would not have to store lots of ballot papers in the lead up to the election.

However, this approach would require dedicated printers, hardware and software capable of working alongside the digital register and EMS systems, back-up equipment and robust security features. Venues would need to have suitable IT facilities and be large enough to hold this equipment.

Data was not available on the cost of the pilots at time of publication. This report will be updated when the cost data is available.  

We expect that this will include overall costs, broken down into the main categories of spending, as provided to central government by the pilot authorities.  

As with any pilot, it will likely be difficult to draw clear conclusions from these pilot costs about the eventual cost of any wider roll out. This is for several reasons:  

• Local authorities have taken different approaches to how they have recorded costs (e.g. whether core team staff costs are included, which pieces of equipment are being charged for)  
• Pilots entail development costs that may not apply in the same way or at all for a roll out
• The local authority areas involved are not representative of all areas
• Some future costs may be missing from the pilot (e.g. national public awareness campaigns)
• Rolling out flexible voting options in more areas would increase costs but doing it nationally could still bring savings through economies of scale.

Staffing

The number of staff working to deliver the pilots varied by local authority area:

• Cambridge had 12 staff members per day (4 per early voting hub) and 1 polling station inspector across all early voting days.  
• Tunbridge Wells had 39 staff members per day (13 per early voting hub) and 2 polling station inspectors.
• North Hertfordshire had 27 people per day (9 per early voting hub) and 1 polling station inspector.  
• Milton Keynes had 7 staff members in the centralised voting hub.  

Our evaluation of the May 2026 pilots shows that innovations such as early voting and centralised polling day voting hubs can be delivered successfully within the existing electoral framework.  

The pilots were well-delivered, with no major administrative issues identified. The technical infrastructure – particularly digital polling station registers – also worked largely as intended, although there were some valuable lessons to be drawn from the pilots.

Our evaluation also shows that both early voting and centralised polling day voting hubs could improve the voting experience. Those who used the early voting hubs or centralised polling day voting hub were generally very positive about their experience and said they would vote flexibly in future, if it were available. Convenience was the main reason people chose to use a flexible voting option, followed by voters stating that they were unable to vote on normal polling day.

However, the data from these pilots clearly shows that the opportunity to vote flexibly (either at an early voting hub or centralised polling day voting hub) does not, on its own, boost turnout significantly. 

Future pilot schemes

So far, the pilots have been limited to a small number of flexible voting options and a small number of areas. There are other flexible voting options which should also be considered (as highlighted in our 2023 flexible voting feasibility studies).  

The evidence generated by these pilots has not been sufficiently robust or comprehensive to draw firm conclusions or make policy decisions about future changes to voting options.  

Before undertaking any further pilot schemes, the UK Government should identify what evidence gaps remain. The Government should consider whether additional pilots are needed to fill in these gaps or whether they could be addressed through existing evidence or other methods of analysis. If further piloting is justified, it should be ambitious enough to generate a comprehensive and comparative evidence base, rather than simply extending the current, limited body of evidence. Continuing with a similarly limited approach to piloting in future years may not be good value for money.

If the UK Government decides that further pilots are necessary, it should invest in a larger and more sustained programme of pilots. This should include testing a wider range of flexible voting options. This would enable different voting methods and delivery models to be evaluated and compared. It would also generate clearer evidence of their comparative impact, including on participation, scalability and cost-effectiveness.

The electoral system in Great Britain already provides voters with access to postal voting on demand as well as voting in polling stations on polling day. The Government should be clear about the added value that introducing new flexible voting options could provide. Future policy development should consider whether the comparative benefits of each option would justify the additional costs and administrative complexity of introducing additional voting methods. 

Background

In their manifesto, the Government outlined their commitment to encouraging greater participation in our democracy. To support this, they invited local authorities to pilot a range of flexible voting options at the local elections in May 2026 and 2027. The legislation required for the pilots was published in February 2026.  

The flexible voting pilot schemes were designed to explore innovative approaches to voting that better reflect the needs and expectations of today’s electorate, by introducing greater flexibility, improving accessibility and enhancing voter satisfaction while safeguarding the integrity, security and transparency of the democratic process. In addition, the pilots aimed to explore how flexible voting methods can better support electors who may face barriers to participation, such as disabled voters, those in remote areas, and communities that are less likely to engage.  

Local Returning Officers ran the processes in each area, and the Government oversaw the pilot scheme as a whole. 

Evaluation methodology

The Electoral Commission was required by law to publish an independent evaluation of the pilot scheme within three months of the election. There were specific questions that we had to consider as part of the evaluation:

• Whether the turnout of voters was higher than it would have been if the scheme had not applied
• Whether voters found the procedures provided for their assistance by the scheme easy to use
• Whether the procedures provided for by the scheme led to any increase in personation or other electoral offences or in any other malpractice in connection with elections
• Whether those procedures led to any increase in expenditure, or to any savings, by the authority

The research questions the evaluation aimed to answer were the following:

• How were the pilots implemented across participating local authorities?  
• How were the options for flexible voting received by voters and electoral administrators?  
• What were the implementation costs associated with delivering flexible voting options across the pilot areas?  

We collected information from different sources to make sure that our evaluation of the scheme was thorough and robust. This included:

• Representative surveys asking people in each local area what they thought of the scheme after polling day in May 2026
• ‘Exit interviews’ with early voters and those who voted in the centralised voting hub after they had cast their vote
• Data on turnout at the elections including the number of early and centralised hub voters and when they cast their vote  
• Views and evidence from Returning Officers and electoral administrators who ran the pilots  
• Information about how much it cost to run the pilot scheme