Trust in online voting is shaped by the entire election experience: the online voting system, the organization running the election, the communications voters receive, the way eligibility is handled, the safeguards behind the process, and the people responsible for administering it.
Simply Voting has seen how these factors shape online voting across a wide range of sectors, organizations, and election types. Over the years, we have served more than 6,800 customers and supported well over 100,000 elections, ranging from very small votes to elections with hundreds of thousands of eligible voters.
That experience also includes increasingly large public elections in Ontario. We supported four municipalities in 2014, 28 municipalities representing more than 300,000 eligible voters in 2018, and 50 municipalities representing more than 700,000 eligible voters in 2022. In October 2026, we are preparing to support 74 municipalities representing approximately 1.2 million eligible voters.
Municipal elections operate under different rules and public responsibilities than elections for associations, unions, universities, cooperatives, professional bodies, and other organizations. Even with those differences, many of the factors that support voter confidence are shared across public and private elections.
Trust Extends Beyond the Technology
The organization’s preparation, communications, eligibility process, ballot design, support, and choice of online voting system all contribute to voter confidence.
In practice, voters experience the election as one process. They do not necessarily separate the technology from the organization that selected it, the instructions they received, or the way the election was administered.
Voters are also judging the organization behind the election. Consistent communication, predictable application of the rules, and transparency about how the process will work all contribute to confidence.
For organizations that conduct elections regularly, there is an opportunity to build familiarity over time. A recognizable online voting process, consistent communications, and clear expectations can make future elections easier for voters to approach with confidence.
Clear communication before online voting opens is part of that experience too. Voters should know when voting takes place, how they will receive or use their credentials, where the official voting process begins, what they are voting on, and what they should expect when they reach the ballot.
Match the Voting Experience to Your Electorate
Different groups of voters can experience the same voting method differently.
Researchers Nicole Goodman and Holly Ann Garnett found differences in reported trust among groups of Ontario voters, including lower reported trust in online voting among respondents with disabilities and higher trust among rural respondents. Their research also found that previous use of a voting method and confidence using the Internet were positively associated with trust in online voting. These findings are specific to the population studied, but they reinforce a broader lesson: administrators should not assume that the same online voting experience will feel equally accessible or trustworthy to everyone.
The organization itself has an important advantage here. It knows its membership or electorate more intimately than an online voting provider does.
Consider what you know about the demographics of your electorate, how voters normally communicate with the organization, how comfortable they are with online services, what accessibility or language needs may exist, whether email reaches them reliably, and what feedback voters have provided about previous election processes.
Different parts of the same electorate may also have different needs. Some voters may be comfortable receiving credentials and voting entirely online, while others may benefit from mailed information, multilingual instructions, an on-site voting option, or additional explanation of how the online voting process works. Those differences can influence communication, authentication, accessibility, support, and the voting channels the organization chooses to make available.
Past elections can provide useful clues too. Recurring support questions, delivery problems, accessibility feedback, and comments from voters can help identify where people may need more explanation, different communication methods, or additional support in the next election.
Matching the voting experience to the electorate means using what the organization already knows about how its voters engage, where they encounter friction, and what helps them participate confidently. No online voting process can be tailored perfectly to every individual voter, but understanding where friction is most likely to occur is already an important part of planning for it.
Make the Online Voting Process Easy to Recognize and Understand
Once voters reach the election, the experience itself should make sense.
Instructions should be clear. Voters should understand what information they need to authenticate, what they are being asked to vote on, and where to get assistance if something does not work as expected.
A trustworthy online voting system also includes controls that perform different jobs. Authentication controls help establish that the person accessing the ballot is an eligible voter and help prevent multiple voting. Ballot-secrecy controls keep the voter’s identity separate from the choices recorded on the completed ballot.
These controls allow administrators to manage participation without being able to see how an individual voted.
Voters do not need a technical explanation of every control behind the online voting system. They do need enough information to understand the principles: why particular credentials are required, how their eligibility is established, and how their completed ballot remains private.
Trust Should Be Supported by Evidence
Organizations are in a stronger position when they can explain why they trust the online voting process. Independent testing, auditability, recognized standards, documented procedures, and clear security controls give them objective evidence to point to and a clearer story to tell voters about why they have confidence in the election.
Every online voting process benefits from appropriate voter authentication, controls that preserve ballot secrecy and election integrity, comprehensive audit logs, and an online voting provider that undergoes independent security testing. Depending on the election’s size, complexity, rules, and risk profile, additional measures may include Logic and Accuracy testing, documented contingency procedures, enhanced authentication, independent oversight, or other election-specific controls.
Auditability is part of that evidence. Administrators should be able to establish what happened during the election, what administrative changes were made, and whether the process followed its procedures.
Research examining standards and security in Ontario municipal online voting reinforces this evidence-based approach. The broader lesson is that confidence in the election is stronger when it rests on objective practices and documented safeguards rather than assumption alone.
For organizations evaluating these kinds of safeguards, we have also outlined how to evaluate the security of an online voting system provider.
The online voting provider has an important role in that chain of trust. Simply Voting supports that responsibility through independent security testing, comprehensive auditability, controls designed to protect ballot secrecy and election integrity, and participation in the development of online voting standards. Simply Voting participated in the Technical Committee that developed CAN/DGSI 111-1:2024, Canada’s standard for online electoral voting in municipal elections, and has implemented the mandatory requirements applicable to its online voting system.
For organizations still assessing potential providers, what to look for when choosing an online voting provider offers a broader framework for considering security, election expertise, support, administration, and service options.
Building a Voting Process People Can Trust
A municipal voter choosing local representatives and a member of a professional association electing directors are participating in very different elections. The applicable rules, legal frameworks, and stakes can differ substantially. But both expect a process that is legitimate, understandable, private, and competently administered.
Simply Voting’s experience with Ontario municipalities has grown from four municipalities in 2014 to 74 municipalities and approximately 1.2 million eligible voters preparing to use the system in 2026. That public-election experience sits alongside more than 6,800 customers and well over 100,000 elections across a wide range of private organizations, sectors, election types, and electorate sizes.
The common lesson is that trust is built across the whole online voting process.
Planning an online election? Contact us to learn how Simply Voting can help you build a voting process your voters can trust.
