Choosing your voting solution in 2027: the vendor comparison grid
You are going to compare electronic voting vendors in 2027. The trap is comparing them on what each one puts forward, every vendor with its own product sheet, its own talking points, and ending up with three offers you cannot line up against each other. The fix fits on one page: a grid, the same eight criteria for everyone, one score each. You fill it in, not them. Here are the eight criteria and what to actually look for behind each.
Why a grid, and why now
The 2028 social elections take place in May 2028. The legal procedure starts in late 2027. The vendor choice, though, is decided before that: you need time to compare, to ask the sensitive questions, and above all to get the works council or CPPW agreement on the principle of online voting. That agreement is negotiated. It cannot be decreed the day before. So 2027 is the year this choice gets made, calmly, while there is still room to talk.
A grid forces one useful thing: ask every vendor exactly the same question, and score the answer on the same scale. A vendor who shines on home ground but stays vague about hosting or support drops in the ranking automatically. That is the whole point.
The eight criteria
Score each vendor from 0 to 3 on each of the eight points. Zero, the answer is missing or worrying. Three, the answer is clear, documented, verifiable.
Security and verifiability. Does the system encrypt ballots? Can a voter check that their vote was recorded and counted without revealing their choice? Are there audit logs? Ask for proof, not adjectives.
Ballot secrecy. This is the number one question from workers and unions. The vendor should explain, concretely, how the voter's identity is kept separate from their ballot. The right answer describes an architecture, not a promise not to look.
Accessibility. Ask for the WCAG conformance level, and aim for level AA. A good system works with a keyboard, with a screen reader, with sufficient contrast and resizable text. That is what lets a person with low vision or reduced mobility vote alone and in secret.
GDPR and the data processing agreement. The employer is the data controller, the vendor is the processor. The vendor must provide a data processing agreement (DPA) that states what it does with the data, how long it keeps it, and what happens at the end of the contract. No clear DPA? That is a warning sign in itself.
Hosting and data location. Where do the servers run? For a Belgian company, hosting within the European Union is a legitimate and common criterion. Put it in writing in the contract, do not assume it.
Support on voting day. The vote almost always goes smoothly. But on the day, if something goes wrong, who answers, how fast, in which language? Support you can reach throughout the voting window is worth more than a 5% discount.
Verifiable references. Ask for a client in your sector and roughly your size, and ask to contact them. A reference you cannot call is not a reference.
Price model. Fixed price, per-voter price, hidden options? Electronic voting often has a more visible fixed cost but a very low cost per voter, which makes it economical as soon as headcount grows or disperses. Read this criterion in the light of the other seven: a low price that sacrifices support or hosting costs more in the end.
How to use it
You hand the same blank grid to each shortlisted vendor, or you fill it in yourself from their written answers. Three columns, one vendor per column, eight rows. You add it up. The winning offer is not necessarily the cheapest or the best known: it is the one that leaves none of the eight points at zero.
One lesson from 2024: do not keep the answers in your head. Write them down. When the time comes to justify the choice to your board, or to the works council, a filled-in, dated grid beats any impression.
In short
Comparing voting vendors in 2027 works better with a grid than with three product sheets. Eight criteria, the same score for each: security and verifiability, ballot secrecy, WCAG accessibility, GDPR and DPA, hosting, support on the day, verifiable references, price model. You fill it in yourself, you add it up, and you decide calmly, while 2027 still leaves you the time.
For the precise questions to ask during the evaluation, read Evaluating online voting vendors and How to write a tender for an online voting tool. And if you want to fill this grid in with us on your own case, let's talk.
