Modernising voting: flexible voting feasibility studies
Introduction
Our research shows people in the UK are generally happy with the current ways of voting in person at elections. But it is important to look at how to keep improving elections, to meet the changing needs of voters and to make voting quicker, more convenient and more accessible.
Many other democracies around the world already offer a range of flexible options for voting. We have looked at how similar options, like advance voting or mobile voting in places like care homes, could work for elections in the UK.
Our research looked at how these options could be offered within existing systems of electoral administration, keeping the UK’s current paper-based voting with the main day of voting on Thursdays, and keeping current count processes. We focused on the benefits, challenges and workability of various routes for flexible voting.
The information set out here is designed to help inform debate about the future of voting in the UK. Should any flexible voting options be taken forward by a government within the UK, this must be done in a way which is secure, keeps elections free and fair, and is realistically workable and deliverable.
Options for flexible voting
Delivering flexible voting
Feasibility studies look at whether potential projects or plans could work in practice.
When exploring how successful the different flexible voting options could be, we used the well-established TELOS framework. TELOS is an acronym for five important areas that should be looked at in a feasibility study: technical, economic, legal, operational and scheduling.
To understand the changes needed, we spoke to members of the electoral administration community. This included several Returning Officers and Electoral Registration Officers, representative organisations such as the Association of Electoral Administrators and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers (Solace) and Electoral Management Software suppliers.
These discussions helped us understand what would be needed to deliver the changes, and to then develop the analysis set out below.
Delivering flexible voting
We looked at what technology might be needed to deliver flexible voting. This included any hardware or equipment, software and other technical requirements.
We also explored what was needed in terms of security, network connectivity, specialist knowledge and support. We looked at whether technical requirements might be different for the five voting models.
Polling station registers: paper or electronic?
At the moment most polling stations at elections in the UK use paper copies of electoral registers. These show all the eligible voters in the relevant voting area, and people who have voted are marked off by polling station staff drawing a line against their entry in the register.
The basic models for advance voting, mobile voting and vote elsewhere could still use these paper polling station registers. However, it would make parts of the process more difficult. Other flexible voting options – voting hubs and vote anywhere – would need to use electronic polling station registers.
Using only paper registers could make it harder to update registers about who had voted ahead of polling day. To prevent people voting more than once, it might mean elections staff would need to manually update registers. There would be less time to do this if the advance voting period or mobile voting session took place close to polling day.
Voting locations would have to keep paper copies of the register for all voters in the relevant area. It could take longer to find voters on the register, especially at higher turnout elections.
Some countries now use electronic polling station registers (sometimes called ‘electronic poll books’ or ‘e-poll books’). These allow polling station staff to use laptops or tablets to search for a voter’s name on the register and mark them as having voted. People who support using these systems say that they allow quicker voter check-in, reduce the risk of human error, and provide real-time information about how many people have voted.
At the May 2022 advance voting pilot schemes in Wales, the pilot authorities used a system which provides electronic registers in the polling station on tablet devices.
Network connectivity
Some flexible voting options would need electronic polling station registers that are connected to a central electoral register, for example by a Wi-Fi network. Connected registers would allow polling station staff to find out in real time whether someone had already cast a vote on a different day or in another location.
This would be important for several flexible voting options, for example:
- Advance voting where people can vote in any advance voting centre within an area
- Voting hubs that are open at the same time as ordinary polling stations on polling day
- Vote anywhere options where people can choose to vote at any polling station within a ward, local authority area or constituency, or from a wider geographical area
If these options only used paper-based registers it would not be possible to provide real-time information about people who had already voted. This would make it harder to prevent people voting more than once.
It might be hard to find reliable network connections in some areas and polling station venues. Mobile signal connectivity surveys and checking venues for Wi-Fi access would be essential in identifying and mitigating any potential connectivity issues.
Electronic registers could potentially still work when not connected and then update once their connections are restored. All flexible voting locations should also have a paper electoral register as a backup in case there are problems with power or connectivity. But this would still make it difficult to provide the right level of security for some flexible voting models.
Security
Using networked electronic registers in polling stations could add security risks to the running of elections. A full security review would be needed before implementing any of the flexible voting options using electronic polling station registers to identify any weaknesses and implement necessary safeguards.
Electoral Management Software (EMS) systems
To support new forms of flexible voting, EMS systems would require further development - for example, to allow relevant documents and register markers to be generated.
Printing ballot papers on demand
We also looked at the option of printing ballot papers on demand in some flexible voting locations, including advance voting centres, voting hubs and vote anywhere polling stations. This happens at early voting centres in Australia.
Printing ballot papers on demand could be useful in some flexible voting situations – for example, it would remove the need to organise and store mass quantities of different ballot papers in advance voting centres, voting hubs and vote anywhere locations – and would remove the risk of ballot shortages.
However, it would require dedicated printers, plus other hardware and software capable of working alongside the electronic register and EMS systems, as well as back-up equipment and robust security features. There would also need to be enough space in venues to hold this equipment and suitable IT facilities in the buildings.
Technical support
Technical support would need to be provided to Returning Officers and their staff, to help them identify and resolve any issues to do with electronic registers or other technology.
We also looked at the possible resource requirements of flexible voting.
Any introduction of flexible voting needs a full impact assessment, including an assessment of the costs and the benefits of implementing it. The government would also need to put a new funding mechanism in place to support roll out of flexible voting.
Building hire, transport and storage
Returning Officers would need to find and hire suitable buildings to host advance voting centres and voting hubs. The buildings would need to be available for the voting period, accessible, conveniently located, big enough to accommodate polling booths, ballot boxes and other voting equipment, comfortable and safe.
Advance voting centres and voting hubs would need to serve heavily populated urban areas and rural locations. When deciding on how many venues are needed in an area, it would be important to think about the distances voters would need to travel to the venue, whether there are good transport links and easy parking.
Mobile voting would require suitable vehicles to transport mobile voting teams and equipment to voting locations. Finding and maintaining the vehicles would have significant cost implications, although it is possible that money could be saved if staff used their own vehicles and were compensated for mileage and fuel use.
Votes cast ahead of polling day would need to be securely transported and stored until they were counted. The cost of doing this would depend on how many days the voting period lasted for.
Some flexible voting options – for example, those where voters were allowed to vote from outside of the area in which they were registered to vote and where ballot papers were ‘geographically dispersed’ – would require ballot boxes to be transported back to the home constituency, local authority or count centre. This could add to the cost and timing of declaring the results of the election.
Staffing
The Returning Officer would need to recruit and train extra staff to support the roll-out of flexible voting. Depending on the flexible voting option, staff may need different skills, experience and training. For example, dedicated mobile voting teams would need to operate a mobile voting service.
Election equipment
Some types of flexible voting would need new equipment. For example, mobile voting sites would need polling booths or portable voting screens to protect the secrecy of the ballot. Some options would also require extra equipment, such as additional ballot boxes, voting stationery and accessibility equipment.
Information technology (IT)
Returning Officers would need hardware devices (for example, tablets or laptops) and other IT equipment to roll-out electronic polling station registers. It could be challenging to get enough equipment to roll-out electronic registers across the country.
Options might include local authorities supplying their own devices or renting the equipment from suppliers. Other suppliers could enter the electronic register market, increasing competition, lowering prices and improving the ability of the industry to meet demand.
There might be other IT costs. For example, to print ballot papers on demand venues would need additional hardware and software (for example, printers).
For some vote anywhere options, the systems would need to be capable of operating across multiple electoral registers. This would mean electoral register solutions might need further technical development.
Electoral Management Software (EMS) systems
EMS systems would need updating to support the roll-out of flexible voting.
Communication
Local authorities and the electoral community – including the Commission, if practices were adopted at scale – would need to consider the cost of developing and running campaigns to raise awareness of new voting methods.
Campaigning costs
Flexible voting could have an impact on the cost of campaigns and how campaigning is approached by parties and candidates.
This factor considers if it is possible to deliver flexible voting under existing electoral law.
Electoral pilot schemes
Under Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act (RPA) 2000, local authorities in England and Wales can apply to the Secretary of State/Welsh Ministers to run electoral pilot schemes. Local authorities in Scotland can apply to the Scottish Ministers under Section 5 of the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Act 2002 to carry out pilot schemes.
Electoral pilot schemes can involve changes to when, where and how voting at local government elections is to take place, how votes cast are counted, or candidates sending election communications free of postage charges.
The RPA 2000 provided the legal framework for six separate rounds of electoral pilot schemes (some of which included advance voting) that took place between 2000 and 2007. It also provided the basis for the four advance voting pilots that took place in Wales in May 2022.
This legislation could potentially be used to conduct further flexible voting pilot schemes.
The Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill contains new piloting powers that would allow Welsh Ministers, local authorities and EROs to propose electoral pilots across different areas. It would also allow Welsh Ministers to compel local authorities to take part in electoral pilots if required. Any future pilots relating to devolved Welsh elections would presumably be progressed via this legislation rather than the RPA 2000.
New legislation
Electoral law sets out the detailed rules for how elections and voting are run. Governments would need to introduce new legislation to be able to roll out flexible voting permanently. This is likely to include changing primary legislation (Acts of Parliament) and secondary legislation (rules and regulations).
The UK Parliament can change the rules for UK parliamentary general elections, all English local government elections, Police and Crime Commissioner elections and Northern Ireland Assembly and local government elections.
The Scottish Parliament and Senedd are responsible for making the rules for Scottish Parliament, Scottish local council, Senedd and Welsh local government elections.
Flexible voting would have specific operational implications. Voters and electoral administrators would need clear procedures for voting, supported by effective legislation and practical guidance.
New procedures
Flexible voting would require procedures that could differ from conventional voting (for example, mobile voting).
Elections staff would require practical training on what is required, including:
- How to conduct mobile voting in different locations
- How to process advance voting, voting hub, vote anywhere or vote elsewhere voters
- How to use electronic registers in voting venues
- How to manage any changes to procedures at the close of poll and the count
This training would be supported by new guidance
Impact on electoral administration
Electoral services teams already deliver other important tasks to run elections. These are often driven by key deadlines within the electoral timetable. Flexible voting could impact the ability of electoral services teams to carry out their normal election duties.
Flexible voting supported by electronic registers would need back-up options in the event of technical failure, for example, using a paper-based system.
Local authorities would need plans for any potential technical problems they could face due to flexible voting.
Planning
Returning Officers would need to plan effectively for the implementation of flexible voting. This would involve staffing and training requirements, managing the venues hosting flexible voting and working with suppliers and contractors to help with implementation.
Returning Officers would need to think about any new risks linked to flexible voting. They would need to develop plans with the police to maintain the integrity of the election.
They would also need to plan communications activities to raise awareness of the changes.
Flexible voting would need to consider the impact of changes on the capacity and resilience of the electoral administration system.
Timing and phasing of implementation
There are already significant changes being made to the way elections are run. Implementing flexible voting would mean making further changes.
Any decision to introduce flexible voting would therefore need to be planned and project managed carefully to ensure successful delivery of change.
Changes to election law relating to flexible voting would need to be clear at least six months ahead of a scheduled poll.
Supporting evidence
Current options for voting
We recently undertook qualitative research with members of the public about their voting experiences and views about changes to voting processes. Our research found that people on the whole were content with the current options they have for voting.
While there were specific challenges remaining for disabled voters and those who need extra assistance to vote in person and in secret, there was nothing to suggest that voting processes were responsible for people choosing not to vote.
People who took part in the research did like innovations that made voting quick, convenient and physically accessible. Ease of access to voting was a key concern for people, but there was also a strong sense that voting should not be so easy that it can be done with little thought.
Reforms to the voting process
We undertake a regular programme of public opinion research, including post-election research and an annual tracker survey. This research tracks public attitudes towards different aspects of elections and democracy in the UK.
Our most recent study carried out across the UK in February 2023 found that:
- 79% of people were satisfied with the process of voting
- 73% expressed confidence that elections are well-run in the UK
We asked the public whether they thought specific reforms to the voting process would make a difference to them. When asked about voting across multiple days:
- 58% of people said that allowing people to vote in person across multiple days would make voting more convenient
- 44% agreed that this would improve the way elections are run in the UK
- 27% said that this reform would make them more likely to vote
- 14% said that it would make voting more secure, while 24% said that the reform would make voting less secure
When asked about having more choice about which polling station to vote in:
- 61% said that having a choice about which polling station to vote in would increase the convenience of voting
- 49% agreed that having this option would improve the way elections are run
- 27% said that it would make them more likely to vote
- 14% said that this option would make voting more secure, while 25% said it would be less secure
Although most people seem broadly satisfied with the voting process, flexible voting could potentially improve the convenience of voting for some and increase public levels of satisfaction with the way elections are run.
To explore what members of the electoral community thought about options to modernise the voting process we conducted interviews with several Returning Officers and Electoral Registration Officers, membership organisations representing the electoral community, party political campaigners and civil society groups.
Interviewees were clear that we should explore ideas to increase engagement and participation, but raised concerns about the capacity and resilience of elections teams and their suppliers. This was because of the impact of recent and planned changes on already stretched electoral administration processes and teams. We have highlighted concerns about capacity and resilience in our reports on recent elections.
Any plans to introduce new methods of voting need to ensure there is sufficient time, capacity and operational resources to support implementation.
Voting methods vary significantly around the world. Often they reflect the specific traditions of nations, as well as the political and legal context in which elections take place.
‘Special voting’ or ‘flexible voting’ are terms used to describe alternative ways of voting other than in person at a designated polling station on polling day. This includes postal and proxy voting (which are already available in the UK), but also other options, such as:
- advance or early voting
- mobile voting facilities in locations such as hospitals, nursing homes and prisons
- the ability for people to cast their vote from any polling station within a defined geographical area
A recent study by International IDEA found that ‘a steadily increasing number of nations employ a range of alternatives to conventional voting’.
A study of 204 countries found that, as of January 2021, advance voting was the most frequently used flexible voting arrangement around the world:
- 6% of countries making this available for all voters and 29% for some voters
- 31% of countries offered mobile voting facilities for some voters
- 5% of countries made postal voting available for all voters and 12% for some voters
- 16% of countries made proxy voting available for some voters