Category: Voting System

Running an online election requires information about the people who are eligible to vote. Voter lists often contain personally identifiable information (PII), such as names, email addresses, voter IDs, mailing information, or other details tied to an individual. That makes it important to transfer voter information securely, control who can access it, and avoid keeping it longer than necessary.

Organizations should decide which voter information is actually needed to run the election before providing a voter list to an online voting system. The same discipline should apply after the election: keep the records you have a reason to retain, and remove voter data when you no longer need it.

What voter data does an online election need?

An online voting system will need information to identify an eligible voter, deliver voting credentials, authenticate them, or determine which ballot questions and voting rights apply.

With Simply Voting, organizations can import a .CSV containing voter information and select the fields required for the election. An organization’s source database may contain additional fields that serve no voting purpose. Those fields should not be imported into the online voting system. For more on preparing the source data itself, see How to Prepare an Accurate Voter List for Online Voting.

Limiting the voter data provided for an online election reduces the amount of personal information that needs to be transferred, stored, accessed, and protected.

How should voter data be transferred?

For a self-service online election, a customer administrator will import voter data directly into the online voting system.

A managed election supported by a Simply Voting Project Manager may require voter files or other information to be exchanged with Simply Voting. Those exchanges should use secure upload areas or protected download links, not ordinary email attachments.

If an online voting provider routinely sends or requests voter PII by ordinary email attachment, that should be treated as a data-handling red flag.

What controls should apply to voter data during an online election?

Once voter data is in the online voting system, controls should govern how it is used, who can access it, and which subprocessors are involved.

Voter data should only be used by the online voting provider to administer the election and should not be processed for unrelated purposes. Organizations should be familiar with the online voting provider’s privacy and data-processing terms, understand what subprocessors are involved, and what role they play. Relevant subprocessors should be listed on the provider’s website; if they are not, ask. The provider should also be able to explain how it reviews and manages the subprocessors it relies on.

Access to voter information should also be limited to the people who need it. With Simply Voting, customers can assign account roles and permissions so their users only have access to the elections and functions required for their work. Administrator activity and changes involving election data are also recorded with user and timestamp information, providing an audit trail.

What should happen to election data after the election?

Once an online election is complete, decide which election records you actually need to keep based on your governance, audit, legal, or other retention requirements.

Simply Voting provides several downloadable election records, including:

• an Electors .CSV reflecting the final voter list, including updates, additions, or removals
• raw results in .CSV format;
• a Results Summary .CSV;
• an Election Log .CSV containing an audit trail of election activity; and
• a Certified Results .PDF summarizing the election results.

After downloading the records you need, decide how long the underlying election data should remain in the online voting system.

Archiving an election
For a finished election with votes, Simply Voting’s archive process preserves limited election information, including the election name, dates, number of voters and votes, ballot content, and a downloadable .CSV summary of results.

Archiving permanently removes elector data, individual votes, election logs, reports, and the Certified Results .PDF. Archived elections cannot be restored, so any records that need to be kept should be downloaded beforehand. Their ballot questions, options, and descriptions can still be cloned into a new Draft, but the original elector list cannot be recovered.

Finished elections with votes are archived automatically after five years. Customers can archive earlier, or arrange extended retention if they need an election to remain in its Finished state beyond five years.

Deleting an election
Customers can also delete an election rather than retain an archived record. Deletion permanently removes the election itself, including its ballot content and remaining election data, so it cannot be restored or cloned.

Simply Voting maintains backups for disaster recovery and business continuity. Deleted data may remain temporarily in those backups before cycling out within seven days.

What about paper ballots in a hybrid election?

The same retention principle applies to physical election materials.

A hybrid election may produce returned paper ballots, spoiled ballots, envelopes, and other materials that should not remain in storage indefinitely.

When Simply Voting manages those materials, items held by Simply Voting are shredded once they are no longer needed for the project, or returned to the customer if requested.

Organizations managing their own paper voting should establish a process for deciding what must be retained, how long it must be kept, and how it will eventually be securely destroyed.

Be deliberate about retention

A good rule of thumb is to be deliberate at both ends of the election. Before voting starts, think about what voter information you actually need and avoid importing information simply because it happens to be in your database. After voting has closed, decide which results, reports, and records you need to keep, and for how long. The same applies to physical election materials. Once voter data or election materials no longer serve a purpose, they should be securely deleted or destroyed.

Planning an online election? Contact us to discuss your election and how voter data will be handled from setup through retention.

Weighted voting is a voting method where different voters are assigned different amounts of voting power.

Organizations use weighted voting when voting rights are connected to factors such as shares, ownership interests, property units, delegate representation, membership structures, or other governance rules. It is used by corporations, condominiums and property associations, professional and trade associations, clubs, sports organizations, cooperatives, credit unions, and other membership organizations.

Weighted voting can apply to candidate contests, yes-or-no questions, approvals, amendments, ratifications, and other ballot questions. An online voting system applies each voter’s assigned weight automatically when ballots are cast and results are calculated.

What Is Weighted Voting?

In a weighted election, each voter is assigned a voting weight for the election.

Those weights can vary considerably and do not need to be whole numbers. One voter might have a weight of 1, another 2.75, and another 18.4375, depending on the organization’s voting rules.

When a voter submits a ballot, their assigned weight is applied automatically to each selection they make, subject to the normal selection rules for that question.

For example, if one voter with a weight of 2.5 and another with a weight of 7.5 both select the same candidate, that candidate receives a combined voting weight of 10 from those two voters.

The same weight also applies when the ballot includes different types of questions. A voter with a weight of 5 could contribute 5 votes of weight to a candidate they select and, elsewhere on the same ballot, 5 votes of weight to their choice on a yes-or-no proposal.

In Simply Voting, the weight is part of the voter record for the election as a whole. It can be imported with the voter list as an additional field alongside voter ID, name, email address, and other voter information.

Administrators should verify those weights when preparing and proofing the voter list for online voting, particularly when they come from ownership records, property records, membership classifications, delegate allocations, proxy information, or another source that determines voting entitlement.

If a weight needs to be corrected after the election has been finalized but before the voter has cast a ballot, the administrator can update it. If an incorrect weight is discovered after the voter has already voted, the issue should be reviewed with Simply Voting because the affected ballot has already been submitted.

Why Organizations Use Weighted Voting

Voting weight may be based on shares, property ownership, delegate representation, membership class, or another rule specific to the organization.

In business and shareholder settings, voting power may reflect shares, ownership interests, or other established rights. Weighted voting can be used for director elections as well as decisions involving ownership or governance, such as approvals, amendments, partner or member admissions, and other corporate business.

In condominiums, homeowners’ associations, property owners’ associations, and similar organizations, voting power may be tied to units, lots, ownership percentages, or another measure established in the governing documents. An owner with several units, for example, may hold more voting power than an owner with one.

Representative organizations may assign voting weight according to the constituency a voter represents. A delegate representing a larger chapter, region, or membership group may carry more voting power than a delegate representing a smaller one.

Weighted voting is also used by professional and trade associations, clubs, sports organizations, cooperatives, credit unions, and other membership organizations. The specific basis for the weight varies according to each organization’s governance structure.

One practical benefit of handling weighted voting through an online voting system is that a voter can cast a single authenticated ballot representing their full voting entitlement. If a voter holds ten units of voting weight, the system applies that weight without issuing ten separate ballots or requiring administrators to multiply the result manually.

Weighted Voting and Proxy Arrangements

Weighted voting can support certain proxy-voting arrangements.

For example, an organization may confirm before online voting begins that Jane Doe is entitled to her own vote and is also authorized to exercise four additional proxy votes. The organization could assign Jane a total voting weight of 5.

Jane would then cast one ballot, with her selections applied to that full voting weight.

Proxy voting can be structured in many ways, so this is one possible approach. How proxies are validated and represented depends on the organization’s rules and election process.

Voter Turnout and Vote-Weight Turnout

Weighted voting introduces an important distinction between voter turnout and vote-weight turnout.

Suppose an election has 100 eligible voters who collectively hold 250 votes of voting weight.

If 60 people participate, voter turnout is 60%.

If those 60 voters collectively represent 190 of the 250 available votes of weight, vote-weight turnout is 76%.

The two figures answer different questions: how many eligible voters participated, and how much of the total available voting power was represented.

Simply Voting reports both the number of voters who participated and the amount of voting weight they represented. Election results also show the total voting weight received by each candidate or voting option.

An organization can then apply its own rules when determining whether requirements such as quorum have been met.

What About Cumulative Voting?

Cumulative voting is a related voting method that allows voters to distribute their available voting power among candidates or options.

With standard weighted voting, the voter’s full assigned weight is applied automatically to each selection.

With cumulative voting, the voter receives a pool of available voting weight that can be distributed according to the election rules.

For example, a voter with a total weight of 10 might allocate 6 votes to one candidate and 4 to another. In Simply Voting, the voter can see their total available weight and how much remains as they allocate it.

Cumulative voting is used much less frequently than standard weighted voting, but it can support elections where voters are permitted to divide their voting power among multiple choices.

Using an Online Voting System for Weighted Voting

An online voting system applies each voter’s assigned weight when their ballot is submitted and calculates the weighted results automatically. Administrators can then track participation by both voters and voting weight without maintaining separate calculations outside the system.

Planning an online election with weighted voting? Contact us to discuss how Simply Voting can support your organization’s voting requirements.

Careful testing and proofing can catch many issues before online voting begins, but not every situation can be anticipated in advance. Simply Voting’s proofing process lets administrators interact with the ballot from a voter’s perspective, review ballot variations, and check voting rules, instructions, voter-facing content, voter data, and communications before approving the election for finalization. Our guide to How to Test Online Voting Before Voting Opens goes into that process in more detail.

Even with careful preparation, circumstances can change or something unexpected can surface once online voting is underway. A voter may have been omitted, an email address may need correcting, an administrator may notice a typo, or a candidate may withdraw.

Not every issue carries the same significance. A good online voting system should make routine administration easy, include safeguards around consequential changes, and provide access to experienced support when additional judgment or support is needed.

Start by Understanding the Scope of the Issue

When an issue is discovered during online voting, first determine what is actually affected.

A single voter who cannot log in is very different from a missing ballot option. An incorrect email address may affect one voter, while an incorrect voter-group assignment could affect an entire segment.

For an individual access problem, start with the basics. What error is the voter seeing? Are they using the correct online voting website and voting credentials? Does the same issue occur in another browser or on another device?

Many voter questions turn out to be isolated access, credential, or simple user-error issues. Establishing the scope helps administrators decide whether they can resolve the issue directly or should involve Simply Voting. If you are unsure, our team can help assess it.

Managing Routine Changes While Voting Is Open

Some changes during an active online election are simply part of normal election administration.

Administrators can add an eligible voter who was omitted, remove a voter who is no longer eligible, or correct information such as an email address, name, or voter-group assignment, provided the voter has not yet voted.

Email issues can often be handled just as directly. If an address bounces or contains an error, administrators can review the affected voter, correct the address, and resend credentials or instructions specifically to that voter. Simply Voting also identifies bad email addresses so administrators can investigate issues such as bounces, malformed addresses, unsubscribes, or spam reports.

Election communications remain flexible as well. Administrators can send an updated message to specific voters, voter segments, voters who have not yet voted, or the full electorate. Scheduled email blasts can also be edited or cancelled before they are sent.

These routine adjustments can be handled while online voting continues.

When a Voter Has Already Voted, the Situation Changes

Whether an affected voter has already submitted a ballot is an important dividing line.

If an incorrect voter-group assignment is discovered before the voter casts a ballot, for example, the administrator can correct the voter record so the proper ballot is presented.

If the issue is discovered after the voter has voted, reach out to Simply Voting. Our staff can review the circumstances with the authorized administrator and work through corrective options that preserve election integrity.

The same principle applies more broadly. A voter-data issue that is straightforward before a ballot is cast can have different implications afterward.

Ballot Changes Have Additional Safeguards Once Online Voting Begins

The online voting system includes deliberate safeguards around finalized ballots. If an issue is discovered before anyone has voted, the election can be un-finalized, corrected, reviewed, and finalized again. Once votes have been cast, administrators can no longer un-finalize it themselves.

That distinction matters because not every ballot correction has the same implications.

Fixing a minor typo that does not change meaning is very different from adding or removing a candidate, adding or removing a question or position, changing a voting option, or changing how voting on a question works.

If something on the ballot needs attention after votes have already been cast, Simply Voting is there as your election partner. Our team can assess the issue, determine who was impacted, understand what the administrator is trying to accomplish, and explain the available options.

Election integrity comes first. In some situations, that means Simply Voting may recommend a different approach from the one initially requested, or decline to make a change that could compromise the election. We will still work with the administrator to explore the available options and identify a path forward that protects the integrity of the election and the organization running it.

When the Circumstances Around an Election Change

Sometimes the circumstances surrounding an election simply change.

A candidate may withdraw, for example. Depending on the organization’s rules and election setup, different responses may be possible. Where candidate-withdrawal functionality is enabled, an administrator can mark the candidate as withdrawn while leaving them visible on the ballot. Removing a candidate entirely requires additional consideration and involvement from Simply Voting staff.

An organization may also determine that the online voting period needs to be extended, including situations where additional time is required for voter turnout to reach quorum. Administrators can extend the election end date and time themselves through Election Manager.

These are governance decisions as well as technical ones. The organization’s own election rules and decision-making authority will shape what it can or should do, but administrators do not have to work through those questions alone. Simply Voting staff can explain the technical options, share relevant election experience, and help the organization chart a practical path forward.

A Clear Audit Trail Throughout the Election

Simply Voting’s Election Log provides a detailed audit trail of significant activity throughout the election, including voter activity, administrative actions, changes to election details, email activity, ballot-related events, and other significant election activity. It also records who performed administrative actions, whether an election administrator or a Simply Voting staff member.

Transparency also includes communicating meaningful changes to the voters they affect. The scope of that communication should reflect the scope of the issue, whether that means contacting one voter, a particular voter group, or the entire electorate. Simply Voting staff can also help administrators think through the appropriate scope and timing of those communications.

Human Support Is Part of Your Online Voting System

Some questions are easily answered through documentation. Others are easier to resolve by talking directly with Simply Voting staff who understand both the online voting system and election administration. Simply Voting customers have access to both.

Administrators can contact Simply Voting staff by telephone or email, or use our Help Centre for straightforward questions. For urgent election issues, the Help tool in Election Manager provides access to our 24/7 emergency support team, with representatives on call outside business hours, including weekends and holidays.

Support from real Simply Voting staff is part of being a customer. That level of support matters because elections are mission-critical events. When online voting is underway, an issue cannot always wait until the next business day, and some situations call for a conversation with someone who understands both the online voting system and election administration.

As your election partner, our role is to understand the situation, explain the available options, and help find a solution that protects election integrity while keeping the experience as smooth as possible for administrators and voters.

Whether the election is being run by a small membership organization or a large institution, the stakes matter to the people involved. We treat every election as mission-critical.

Support When It Matters

When something unexpected does arise, routine changes can often be handled directly by administrators, while more consequential issues have additional safeguards built into the online voting system.

Simply Voting staff are available throughout the process whenever an administrator needs experienced guidance or help working through a situation. You do not have to face an unexpected situation alone.

Planning an online election? Contact us to learn how Simply Voting can support your organization before, during, and after online voting.

Offering online voting in multiple languages can be a straightforward part of an organization’s election process. Simply Voting supports voter interface translations in 17 languages, while administrators provide translations for the content that is specific to their own elections.

The main goal is consistency. Voters should be able to navigate the online voting process in an available language and, when translated election content is provided, receive the same essential information regardless of the language they choose.

Decide Which Languages Your Organization Wants to Offer

An organization’s approach to multilingual elections may come from bylaws, policies, legislation, established procedures, or simply the languages it normally uses to communicate with members or voters.

This is generally an organization-wide decision about how elections are conducted. In Simply Voting’s online voting system, administrators enable the languages they want available for their account and choose an account-wide default language. Once enabled, those languages remain available for future elections unless the organization updates its language settings.

The default language is the language voters see first when they access the online voting website and appears at the top of the language picker. Voters can switch to another enabled language if they prefer.

If an organization already maintains language preference information in its membership or voter database, it can also use that information for targeted communications. For example, voters identified with a particular language preference can receive an email directing them initially to the corresponding language version of the online voting website, while still retaining the option to switch to another available language.

Let the Online Voting System Handle the Interface

Once a language is enabled, Simply Voting handles the standard voter interface automatically. Navigation, buttons, field labels, standard instructions, confirmation messages, and error messages are translated and maintained by Simply Voting.

The online voting system also handles language-specific display requirements, including right-to-left presentation where appropriate. Administrators do not need to manage those interface details themselves.

This allows administrators to focus on the content that is specific to their organization and each election.

Add Translations as You Set Up Each Election

As administrators set up an online election, they can add translations for the content specific to that election.

This can include election titles and descriptions, question titles and descriptions, option or candidate titles, custom instructions, candidate biographies or statements, and other supporting text.

The language versions are attached to the same underlying election, question, or option record.

For example, a question can have an English title and description, a French title and description, and additional translated versions while remaining a single question in the online voting system. Its voting rules, ordering, abstention settings, and other configuration remain consistent across languages.

If your organization has staff who are comfortable translating election content, use them. If not, consider professional translation for content where precise wording is particularly important. Translation tools can be useful for simpler content, but should be used with care for election-specific wording, candidate information, and anything where a mistranslation could change the meaning. For fully managed elections, Simply Voting can also arrange professional human translation of customer-supplied content for an additional fee.

Decide How Far Multilingual Content Should Extend

The ballot itself may be only one part of the information voters receive as part of the online voting process.

Organizations may also provide custom email messages, candidate information, explanations of bylaws or proposals, agreement summaries, or other supporting material. Some of this information may appear directly in the online voting system, while other material may be hosted on the organization’s own website or provided through links to PDFs, videos, or other external resources.

Not every piece of supporting material needs to be available in every enabled language. An organization may provide its main election content in several languages while making some supporting material available in only one or two.

An organization also does not have to translate every piece of election-specific content simply because a language is enabled. It may choose to make the online voting interface available in additional languages while leaving some or all of its own ballot content in a single language. In that case, voters would still see Simply Voting’s professionally maintained translations for navigation, standard instructions, buttons, error messages, and other system text, alongside election-specific content that remains in the organization’s primary language. This can provide a partial multilingual experience when full translation is not practical.

Email communications can follow the same approach. Simply Voting’s standard system-generated email content is automatically available in the languages enabled for the account, while administrators can provide translated versions of any custom wording they add.

Proof Each Language Before Finalizing the Election

As part of the normal proofing process, administrators should review each enabled language before they approve the election and finalize it for online voting.

That includes checking election and question titles, option or candidate information, descriptions, custom instructions, email content, and links to external documents or webpages.

This is also a good time to catch any missing translations, awkward formatting, or broken links.

If candidate information, special voting instructions, or explanatory material is being provided in several languages, administrators should make sure voters are receiving the same essential information in each version.

Because Simply Voting maintains the multilingual voter interface, administrators can focus their proofing on the organization’s own content and how it appears within the completed election.

A Simple Approach to Multilingual Online Voting

Multilingual online voting can remain a straightforward part of the election process. Simply Voting handles the standard interface and underlying election structure, while administrators focus on the election-specific content and translations they provide.

Planning an online election for voters in more than one language? Contact us to learn how Simply Voting can help you offer online voting in multiple languages.

Voter eligibility and voter authentication are closely connected parts of an online voting process, but they serve different purposes.

Voter eligibility determines who is allowed to participate in an election and what they are entitled to vote on.

Voter authentication is the process used to confirm that the person attempting to vote corresponds to an eligible voter.

With online voting, both matter. The organization first determines who should be allowed to vote based on its rules and procedures. The online voting system then needs a way to confirm that the person accessing the election corresponds to one of those eligible voters.

Understanding the distinction helps organizations prepare accurate voter lists for online voting, assign the right ballot content, explain the online voting process clearly to voters, and communicate more effectively with their online voting provider when questions arise.

What Is Voter Eligibility?

Voter eligibility determines who is permitted to participate in an election.

The criteria come from the organization conducting the election. Depending on the organization, eligibility might be based on membership status, a cutoff date, a particular chapter or region, employment status, student status, a bargaining unit, or another requirement established by bylaws, policies, legislation, or election procedures.

The organization determines eligibility based on its rules and procedures, and those decisions are reflected in the voter list used for the election.

Eligibility can also affect ballot entitlement. Two people may both be eligible voters in the same election but be entitled to vote on different contests or questions.

For example, members of a national association might all vote for a president while only members from a particular region vote for that region’s representative. Similarly, students in different faculties or union members in different bargaining units may receive different ballot content.

Eligibility can also change from one election to another even when the organization’s overall membership remains largely the same. An organization may run several elections over the course of a year. Some may involve the full membership, while others apply only to a particular region, chapter, class, committee, or other group. In other cases, the full membership may participate while different groups receive different ballot content.

This is one reason accurate voter data matters. The voter list needs to reflect both who is eligible and any voter groups or attributes used to determine voting rights. We discuss that process in more detail in How to Prepare an Accurate Voter List for Online Voting.

What Is Voter Authentication?

Voter authentication is the process used to confirm that the person attempting to vote corresponds to an eligible voter record.

With online voting, authentication can take different forms depending on how an organization configures voter access. Voters might receive a unique voter ID and password generated specifically for the election. An organization might instead use something already known to the voter, such as a membership or employee number, together with a randomly assigned password. Other options may include a unique voting link, single sign-on, or additional authentication information, such as a date of birth used in combination with other credentials.

There is often a balance between convenience and security. Credentials that are too easy to obtain or guess may provide insufficient protection and jeopardize election integrity, while an authentication process with too many separate steps can create unnecessary friction for voters and potentially discourage participation.

Authentication controls access to the online voting system by confirming that the voter’s credentials match an eligible voter record. How authentication is configured affects both security and the voter experience.

How Do Voter Eligibility and Authentication Work Together?

Eligibility and authentication are separate controls, but they work together throughout the online voting process.

A simplified sequence looks like this:

1. The organization establishes the voter list. Based on its eligibility rules, the organization identifies who may participate and what voting rights apply, then adds those eligible voters to the election in the online voting system.
2. The voter logs in using their required credentials. The online voting system authenticates the voter by matching those credentials to an eligible voter record in the voter list of an election.
3. The system presents the appropriate ballot. The voter receives the contests or questions they are entitled to vote on based on the election configuration and their voter record.
4. The voter submits their ballot and is recorded as having voted. The voter record is updated to show that the person has participated, preventing that voter from voting again in the same election.
5. The completed ballot remains separate from the voter’s identity. Ballot-secrecy controls keep the choices recorded on the completed ballot separate from the voter record used for authentication and participation tracking.

Consider a professional association with 10,000 members. Its rules might make 8,500 members eligible for a particular election. All 8,500 can vote for organization-wide directors, but members in different regions may also receive different regional contests.

Eligibility determines which members belong in the election and which contests apply to them. Authentication confirms which eligible member is accessing the election. The online voting system then provides the ballot content associated with that voter.

Why These Distinctions Matter in Online Voting

Understanding the difference between eligibility, authentication, ballot entitlement, participation tracking, and ballot secrecy helps organizations communicate more clearly with their online voting provider and explain the process more clearly to voters.

A shared understanding is useful when working with an online voting provider. Using the same terminology helps organizations and their provider communicate more clearly during election setup, training, and support, particularly when questions arise.

The distinctions also help organizations explain the process to voters. Voters may want to understand why certain credentials are required, why different groups receive different ballot content, how the system can prevent someone from voting twice, or how it can confirm that someone has participated while keeping completed ballots private.

Understanding the Whole Online Voting Process

Eligibility determines who may vote. Authentication confirms who is trying to vote. Ballot entitlement determines what that voter may vote on. Participation tracking records that the voter has voted. Ballot-secrecy controls protect how that voter voted.

Together, these functions make up the core of the online voting process.

Planning an online election? Contact us to learn how Simply Voting can help you configure an online voting process that fits your organization’s needs.

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.

Accurate voter data is foundational to online voting.

The voter list translates an organization’s eligibility rules into the election: who can vote, which contests they are entitled to participate in, and what information the online voting system needs to administer the election correctly.

Omissions, duplicates, outdated information, or incorrect voter groups can affect someone’s ability to participate or the ballot they receive. A clear and accurate voter record also supports the integrity of the election and creates a stronger administrative record if the process is reviewed afterward.

Start With Eligibility and Reliable Source Data

Every voter list begins with a fundamental question: who is eligible to vote in this election?

Eligibility depends on the organization. It might be based on membership status, membership class, or a constituency such as a chapter, unit, region, or other group established by the organization’s rules and procedures. Timing can differ too: one organization might use a fixed cutoff date, while another may allow eligible voters to be added or updated much closer to the start of online voting, or even during the voting period.

The voter list should come from reliable organizational source data, such as a membership database. For most organizations, that means exporting the relevant records, importing a CSV into the online voting system, and selecting the fields needed for the election. Larger organizations may use voter-data synchronization between their own database and the online voting system, which Simply Voting can support for more advanced data-management needs.

Each voter should also have a unique identifier. A stable membership number or other internal identifier is generally preferable to an email address or arbitrarily assigned value because it is tied consistently to the individual in the organization’s source data. Simply Voting will not accept duplicate Elector IDs, so the import process can surface potential duplicate records that warrant investigation before voting begins.

If an import exposes an issue that originates in the organization’s own database, correcting the source data as well helps prevent the same problem from reappearing in a future election.

Make Sure the Voter List Matches the Election Requirements

Once eligibility has been established, the imported voter list in the online voting system needs to reflect it accurately. Eligible voters should be included, duplicate or questionable records investigated, identifying information checked, and voters assigned the appropriate voting rights.

If the election requires voter segmentation, those values need to be consistent with the election configuration. A seemingly small difference in source data can create a different voter group. For example, if some records use “Unit 123-A” and others use “Unit 123A,” the online voting system may treat them as separate groups. If ballot questions or voting rights have only been assigned to one version, voters in the other group may receive the wrong ballot content or have nothing to vote on.

Voters who have no voting rights in the election should not be included in the voter list.

Duplicate records can create uncertainty if they are discovered during an audit or brought to an administrator’s attention by a voter. For example, someone might report receiving two invitations with different voting credentials at two email addresses the organization has on file. Situations like this can raise questions about whether an individual voter was inadvertently duplicated, how that may affect election integrity, and whether the underlying source data needs to be reconciled.

Accurate voter data supports election integrity and administration. It helps establish that the right people were given the right voting rights and provides a stronger foundation if the election is scrutinized during or after voting.

Share Only the Voter Data Needed for Online Voting

Organizational databases often contain information that is not needed for online voting. Before providing voter data to an online voting vendor, limit the file to the information required to administer the election.

That may include information used to identify voters, authenticate them, send election communications, or assign the appropriate voting rights. Other information in the organization’s database may serve no practical election purpose.

Sensitive membership information, such as a Social Insurance number, driver’s licence number, or other unrelated personal information, should not be provided to an online voting vendor simply because it happens to exist in the source data.

It is also worth understanding how the online voting vendor handles the voter information it receives. Voter data should be used for administering the organization’s election, with clear terms governing its use. The online voting vendor should also be able to explain its default data-retention practices and what options the organization has to shorten retention where appropriate.

Keep Corrections Intentional and Traceable

During an active election, voter records often need updates. A bounced invitation may reveal an outdated or mistyped email address, a voter may report a delivery issue and provide an alternate contact address, or someone may have been assigned to the wrong voter group.

Administrators can update those records themselves. After a correction, they can resend an invitation directly or allow the voter to be picked up in the next scheduled reminder sent to eligible voters who have not yet voted.

Simply Voting’s audit logs maintain a detailed record of voter changes, including which administrator made the change, when it happened, and what was changed. That history helps preserve the administrative story of the election and allows later questions to be answered from an authoritative record.

Simply Voting support is available to provide guidance when questions arise. Once voting is active, ballot content and configuration are locked from normal editing, and submitted ballots are protected from alteration as election-integrity safeguards. If an issue arises that could require a change to ballot content or configuration, Simply Voting support will help determine the appropriate way to address it while protecting the integrity of the election.

The Voter List Supports Election Recordkeeping

After voting, the voter list will show which eligible voters participated and which did not. That information remains separate from the election results and the raw ballot box, so administrators can know who voted without knowing how they voted.

This can be useful when preserving the election record. Participation can be documented while ballot secrecy is maintained.

The voting process can also surface issues in the organization’s source data. A voter may identify a spelling error, an apparent duplicate may uncover records that need to be reconciled, or another correction made during the election may also belong in the organization’s permanent records.

Confirmed corrections should be fed back into the organization’s authoritative database so the source records stay current rather than being corrected only for one election. An optional downloadable record of voter changes can also make it easier to update the organization’s source database with confirmed corrections after the election.

Accurate Voter Data Supports the Whole Election

Accurate voter data supports the election from setup through final recordkeeping. It helps ensure the right people receive the right voting rights, gives administrators a clear record of legitimate changes, and helps keep the organization’s source data current afterward.

Simply Voting makes it easy to import the voter information an election requires, including selecting the relevant fields from a larger source list. From there, administrators can manage voter records, assign the appropriate ballot content, communicate with voters, and rely on comprehensive audit logs throughout the election.

Start your next election with the right voters and the right information. Contact us if you have questions about preparing your voter data or running your election with Simply Voting.

Organizations often use online voting for elections that recur on a regular cycle, sometimes annually and sometimes more frequently. But the people responsible for administering them can change. A staff member may retire or move to another role. Election responsibilities may shift or rotate. Sometimes, a new administrator simply inherits the responsibility with little opportunity for a formal handoff.

The person administering your election may change, but your organization’s knowledge about how the election is run shouldn’t disappear with them.

A little planning for election administration continuity can make these transitions much easier. That starts with making sure access to the online voting system and important organizational knowledge don’t depend entirely on one person.

The same continuity challenge appears throughout organizations. The American Society of Association Executives (ASAE), for example, has highlighted knowledge transfer during staff transitions as one reason associations benefit from documenting important processes. For election administration, continuity includes both access to the online voting system and an understanding of how the organization runs its elections.

Plan for Account Access Continuity

One of the simplest places to start is account access.

Many organizations have one person who does most of the hands-on election administration, since having a single primary administrator is a simple way to establish clear responsibility for the election.

Our own customer data shows how common this is. About two-thirds of Simply Voting customer accounts have only one administrator user. Having one primary administrator can work perfectly well, particularly when appropriate transition or handoff procedures are already in place. The potential difficulty appears when responsibilities change and neither account access nor the knowledge needed to continue the election process has been transferred.

Where appropriate, having another authorized administrator can provide some basic continuity. It means a future transition doesn’t have to begin with recovering access to the online voting system.

Preserve the Context Behind the Process

Account access is only part of election administration continuity. Someone taking over an election also needs to understand how the organization conducts it.

Documented procedures are useful, particularly for recurring elections. But the most valuable information isn’t always a step-by-step description of what the previous administrator did.

A new administrator may need to know where to find internal election rules or guidelines, how the organization produces an accurate voter list, who is involved, and who handles important approvals.

There may also be context behind established practices. Why do different groups of voters see different contests? Why are certain people involved in reviewing the ballot? Why are communications sent at particular points during the election? Capturing that context helps preserve the reasoning behind the process, particularly where established practices involve exceptions, judgment calls, or decisions that would not be obvious from the written rules alone.

Some light cross-training can help as well. Another individual could know where election procedures and records are kept, understand the broad election timeline and its recurring milestones, and know which people are involved. Sharing some of that knowledge makes the process less dependent on one person’s experience and gives someone else a starting point if responsibilities change.

A useful way to think about continuity is to ask what would happen if the primary administrator were unavailable when the next election approached. Could someone else reconstruct the process well enough to get started? The goal isn’t for another person to know every detail, but for the organization to have a workable path forward.

Previous elections can show how an election was configured, but they cannot always explain why it was configured that way. That is where organizational context remains important.

Use Previous Elections as a Reference

For organizations that conduct recurring elections, the history available within an online voting system can provide useful context for someone taking over.

Within Simply Voting, administrators can review previous elections to see how an earlier election was configured. A recurring election can also be cloned from an earlier election, providing a starting point instead of requiring the new administrator to recreate the setup from scratch.

Within Simply Voting, older elections are archived after five years, but vital configuration information remains available so an archived election can still serve as the basis for cloning.

Getting a New Administrator Up to Speed

A planned transition gives an outgoing administrator an opportunity to share knowledge, explain the organization’s process, and help their successor become familiar with the online voting system. Sometimes, however, someone inherits responsibility with little or no handoff.

When a transition is planned, it can help to leave enough overlap for the incoming administrator to review the process and come back with questions after the initial handoff.

If the new administrator already has account access, getting started is relatively straightforward. They can review available previous elections, consult internal procedures and Simply Voting’s step-by-step documentation, and contact Simply Voting’s support team with questions.

If nobody remaining at the organization has account access, Simply Voting can still help establish access for an appropriately authorized new contact and help them get oriented within the system.

The predecessor doesn’t need to teach their successor everything about Simply Voting. Simply Voting’s step-by-step documentation, along with telephone and email support, can help a new administrator learn the administrative side of the online voting system, review previous or archived elections, work from a cloned election, and answer questions that arise as they get oriented.

Simply Voting’s support team can also share practical election administration experience where the organization’s own procedures leave room for discretion, such as considerations around how long voting should remain open or how voter reminders might be scheduled.

Simply Voting can help a new administrator understand and use the online voting system. The organization remains the expert on its own internal election practices, procedures, and requirements. Together, that internal knowledge and Simply Voting’s support can make a change in administrators much easier to navigate.

When More Help Would Make the Transition Easier

When responsibility changes at an inconvenient time, or an organization doesn’t have much time to bring a new administrator up to speed before its next election, some additional help can provide a practical shortcut.

Simply Voting also offers a targeted administrator training session for organizations that want a guided introduction to the Election Manager tool or need to bring someone up to speed quickly. This shared-screen session uses a demonstration account and dummy election content so the administrator can work through the system with guidance, and the session can be recorded for future reference.

If an organization would rather offload the administration of an upcoming election, Simply Voting’s Elections team can configure and prepare the election on the organization’s behalf. With about a week’s lead time, the team can configure, proof, and prepare an election for launch, with rush service also available when needed.

Keep Online Voting on Track

Good election administration continuity gives the next administrator a workable starting point. Appropriate online voting system access, documented organizational knowledge, and previous election history can all make a transition easier.

Simply Voting’s step-by-step documentation and support team can help when responsibilities change, with training or managed election services available when more hands-on assistance would help.

Keep your next election moving, no matter who’s administering it. Whether you’re bringing a new administrator up to speed or want more hands-on assistance, Simply Voting can help. Contact us to discuss support, training, or managed election services.

Testing an election before online voting begins is one of the simplest ways to identify issues while they are still easy to address. The right amount of testing will vary by organization, but the goal is the same: confirm that the election reflects your rules, that voters will see what you expect them to see, and that the online voting process works the way you intend.

For many organizations, ballot proofing and a careful review are enough. Others may choose to go further with a small dry run that covers both the voter and administrative experience. The appropriate level of testing depends on the organization’s own review practices and requirements.

Start With the Rules of Your Election

Before testing the ballot within the online voting system, make sure you understand your organization’s election rules and requirements and how they need to be reflected in the configuration.

If voters may select only one candidate for a position, the ballot configuration should enforce that limit. If members may elect up to five people to a committee, they should be able to select up to five. If a bylaw question allows voters to approve, oppose, or abstain, those options should appear as intended.

The same principle applies to the features used in a particular election. Write-ins, candidate statements or photos, supporting documents, weighted voting, segmented ballots, or multiple languages may all deserve attention when they apply.

These rules and requirements provide the reference point for the testing that follows.

Decide Who Should Be Involved in Testing

Who participates in testing will vary by organization.

Often, the election administrator handles the review independently. In other cases, a colleague, election committee member, or other internal stakeholder can provide a useful fresh set of eyes.

That second perspective can help spot an inconsistency or simple oversight. An internal reviewer might notice a misspelled candidate name, for example, or that a candidate was inadvertently left off a particular contest.

Simply Voting customers can also contact our support team when they want another experienced set of eyes. Our staff can briefly review the setup with an eye toward how the election has been configured, flagging potential inconsistencies or gotchas and explaining how we understand the election to work. Sometimes hearing that understanding reflected back can help an administrator confirm that the setup matches their intent.

For organizations with their own independent oversight processes, testing may occasionally involve an auditor or another third party as well. This is uncommon, but it can form part of the additional rigor an organization chooses or is required to apply to its election proofing and review.

Proof the Ballot as You Set Up Your Election

Simply Voting’s ballot proofing tool provides a quick way to experience the ballot from a voter’s perspective at any point while the election is being configured. An administrator might proof individual questions as they are completed, review several sections together, or wait until more of the ballot has been built. The proofing tool can fit into whatever setup and review workflow works best for the administrator.

Administrators can cast simulated proof votes, move through the ballot and confirmation screens, and repeat the process as needed.

A proof link can also be shared with colleagues without giving them access to the administrative back end, making it easy to gather feedback during the setup process.

The proofing process can cover the election-specific details and functionality that matter, including candidate names, question wording, instructions, selection limits, write-in functionality, abstention options, supporting documents, and any other ballot rules that apply.

The same ballot proofing tool can be used to review different ballot variations. If different groups of voters will see different ballot content, proof the relevant variations through the tool. If the election is offered in more than one language, each language version can be reviewed there as well.

Focus each review on the configuration that is relevant to the upcoming election. Established account-level elements, such as branding, only warrant another look when they have changed.

Check the Voter Data and Communications

The ballot is only one part of the online voting process.

Review the voter data before finalization and launch. Confirm that the overall voter count makes sense, check key voter information for accuracy, and verify that any groups or segments used to determine what appears on a voter’s ballot have been assigned correctly.

Communications deserve similar attention. Review invitation and reminder messages, election dates, instructions, contact information, and any dynamic information that will be inserted into the message. Previewing the final message before it is sent can help identify issues that may not have been obvious during setup.

For a closer look at this part of the process, our guide to online voting communications covers what organizations may want to communicate before, during, and after an election.

Together, these checks can help prevent avoidable voter data and communication issues once online voting begins.

Consider a Full Election Dry Run

A full dry run is an optional additional step. For many organizations, careful configuration and ballot proofing are enough. Others may want to go beyond reviewing the ballot itself and test the broader voter and administrative experience before finalizing the original draft election.

Simply Voting’s cloning functionality provides a convenient way to do this. Cloning can save administrators time when creating a new election based on a previous one, and it can also be useful for testing. Once the draft election has been configured and proofed and appears ready for a final test, the administrator can clone it and use that copy for a dry run. If the dry run is successful, the original draft can then proceed toward finalization and launch.

Participants can experience the online voting process from both perspectives. As a dummy voter, someone can receive an invitation, log in, cast a ballot, and receive the appropriate confirmation. From the administrative side, the test can include sending communications, monitoring the election, and unlocking and reviewing the resulting tabulation once voting has ended.

The dry run can follow the broader workflow: email invitation → voter login → ballot → confirmation → voting ends → results review

The dry run provides another opportunity to re-check that the functionality used in the election has been configured as intended. If write-ins are enabled, a dummy voter can try one. If abstention is available, someone can test it. If different groups receive different ballot variations, dummy voters from those groups can confirm that the expected content appears.

At the Far End of the Spectrum: Formal Logic and Accuracy Testing

Formal logic and accuracy testing is generally only relevant where an organization’s own governance, procedures, or oversight requirements call for that degree of rigor.

Formal logic and accuracy testing verifies the calculation and tabulation logic of the online voting system against predetermined expected results. The organization develops a voting script that instructs test voters to cast specific combinations of votes across candidates, questions, ballot variations, abstentions, write-ins, or other applicable scenarios. After the test election closes, the resulting tabulation is compared with the expected results.

Following the voting script accurately is important. If the tabulation differs from the expected results, first confirm that the scripted votes were cast as instructed before investigating the discrepancy further.

Depending on the organization’s requirements, the process may also include documented review, sign-off, or participation by an independent auditor or other third party.

Prepare Your Online Election for Launch

There is no single testing process that every organization using an online voting system needs to follow. For many, careful ballot proofing provides the review they need. Others may choose to add a full election dry run. Organizations with specific governance or oversight requirements may have more formal procedures to follow.

Testing is one part of preparing an election for a smooth launch. Our guide to common mistakes organizations make before online voting begins covers some of the other issues worth considering before voting opens.

A careful review gives administrators a final opportunity to spot issues, verify the experience they have created, and make adjustments before online voting begins. A little preparation beforehand can go a long way toward an election that runs without a hitch.

Planning an Upcoming Online Election? Simply Voting gives election administrators tools to proof and test their online voting setup before voting begins, along with real human support when another experienced set of eyes would be useful. And if something unexpected does come up once voting is underway, emergency support is available 24/7. Whether you plan to administer your online voting system independently or would like additional assistance from our Elections team, contact us today to discuss your upcoming election.