For decades, paper ballots have been the safe, familiar choice for organisations running elections, AGMs, committee elections and member ballots.

There is a reason for that. A paper ballot is easy to understand. Voters mark a form, place it in a box or return it by post, and the votes are counted.

But paper becomes much harder to manage as the size and complexity of a ballot increases.

What happens when voters are spread across multiple sites? What if members are interstate? How do you securely manage hundreds or thousands of ballot papers? How do you handle preferential voting, weighted votes, proxies or a secret ballot? And how much time does it take to verify, count and audit the result?

That is where electronic ballot software has changed the way many Australian organisations conduct elections and ballots.

The question is not simply whether electronic voting is newer than paper voting. The better question is:

Which method gives your organisation the right balance of security, accessibility, accuracy, transparency and administrative control for the particular vote?

For a small local election, paper may still be perfectly practical. For a large, geographically dispersed or highly scrutinised ballot, electronic voting can offer significant advantages.

What is electronic ballot software?

Electronic ballot software is a system that allows eligible voters to cast their votes electronically, usually through a secure web-based platform.

Depending on the system and the type of election, voters may receive a unique voting link, login credentials, authentication code or another method of establishing their eligibility.

The software can then manage parts of the voting process such as:

The exact features vary considerably between providers.

That last point matters.

An online form that collects votes is not necessarily an electronic ballot system suitable for a formal election.

A serious voting process needs controls around who can vote, whether they can vote more than once, how voting choices are protected, how the result is calculated and how the process can be demonstrated afterwards.

Paper ballots still have a place

The comparison should not be framed as “old versus new”.

Paper ballots can be an excellent option when the electorate is small, participants are physically together and the voting rules are relatively straightforward.

For example, a community organisation with 30 members holding an in-person committee election may have little reason to introduce a sophisticated electronic voting platform.

Paper also has some practical advantages:

For a simple ballot, that simplicity can be valuable.

The problem arises when organisations try to use the same paper-based process for much larger or more complicated elections.

Electronic ballot software vs paper ballots

There is no universal winner. The right choice depends on the nature of the ballot.

The table makes one thing clear: neither method is automatically more secure or more appropriate simply because of the technology used.

A poorly designed electronic ballot can create problems.

So can a poorly managed paper ballot.

The quality of the process matters more than whether the ballot is digital or physical.

Security: is electronic voting safer than paper?

This is usually the first question asked by committees and boards considering a move to online voting.

The honest answer is: it depends on the system.

Paper ballots have familiar security controls. Ballot papers can be numbered, stored securely, handled by authorised people and counted under observation.

But paper also creates physical risks.

Ballot papers can be lost, damaged, incorrectly marked, duplicated, miscounted or accidentally disclosed. Postal ballots introduce another chain of handling between the voter and the organisation.

Electronic systems move the security challenge from physical handling to information security.

A well-designed electronic ballot should consider:

For organisations handling personal information, privacy also needs to be considered. The OAIC’s Australian Privacy Principles include requirements concerning the collection and security of personal information, including taking reasonable steps to protect information from misuse, interference, loss and unauthorised access.

The important point is that “online” does not automatically mean “secure”, just as “paper” does not automatically mean “secure”.

The organisation should assess the controls surrounding the entire voting process.

Accuracy and counting

Counting is one of the clearest differences between the two approaches.

With paper ballots, someone has to physically inspect and count the ballot papers.

That can work very well when there are relatively few votes.

It becomes more difficult when there are:

A manual count may also require multiple people to check results.

Electronic ballot software can automate much of this work.

For example, the system can be configured to apply particular voting rules and calculate results consistently. This can significantly reduce manual counting and transcription.

That does not mean the software should simply be trusted without testing.

For a significant election, administrators should test:

The software should support the governance process, not replace it.

What about secret ballots?

Secret voting is particularly important for elections where voters need confidence that their individual choices cannot be traced back to them.

A paper secret ballot normally achieves this through physical separation: the ballot paper records the vote while the process is designed to prevent the completed ballot from being linked back to the voter.

Electronic systems need to achieve the same objective through system design.

This can involve separating voter authentication information from ballot selections and ensuring administrators cannot simply connect a person’s identity to their vote.

This distinction is crucial:

A system can know that someone was entitled to vote without necessarily revealing how that person voted.

For organisations conducting elections, this should be one of the questions asked when assessing an electronic ballot provider.

Accessibility and voter participation

One of the strongest practical arguments for electronic voting is accessibility.

Consider a national organisation with members located in Perth, Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and regional areas.

A paper election might require ballot papers to be posted, returned and processed. An in-person election may require members to travel.

An online ballot can allow eligible members to participate remotely using a supported device.

This can be particularly useful for:

Electronic voting can also provide accessibility benefits when the platform itself is properly designed.

But accessibility should not be assumed.

A good voting process should consider members who have limited digital skills, poor internet access, disabilities or other barriers to participation.

For some electorates, a hybrid voting model may be the better answer.

Cost: is electronic voting cheaper?

This is another area where comparisons can be misleading.

Paper ballots may appear cheaper because the basic materials are inexpensive.

But the real cost of a paper election can include:

For a small election, those costs may still be modest.

For a large election, they can add up quickly.

Electronic voting can reduce many of these physical costs, but it introduces other costs such as platform fees, configuration, testing, voter support and administration.

The right comparison is therefore not:

“How much does paper cost?”

It is:

“What is the total cost of delivering a secure, accurate and defensible election?”

Speed matters more than many organisations realise

Paper voting can create a long gap between the moment a ballot closes and the announcement of the final result.

Ballot papers may need to be transported, sorted, checked and counted.

Electronic voting can shorten that process considerably.

Once the ballot closes, an appropriately configured platform can calculate the result and generate reports without requiring administrators to manually enter thousands of ballot selections.

That can be particularly valuable when the result needs to be communicated promptly.

Speed should not come at the expense of verification, however.

For important elections, the result still needs to be reviewed against the applicable rules and process.

Electronic voting does not remove governance responsibilities

This is one of the most common misconceptions.

Moving an election online does not mean the organisation can stop checking its constitution, rules, legislation or election procedures.

The voting method is only one part of the governance process.

Before choosing electronic ballot software, check:

1. What do your rules permit?

Your constitution, rules, bylaws, legislation or meeting procedures may specify how voting is conducted.

The Commonwealth Electronic Transactions Act 1999 provides a framework for electronic transactions under Commonwealth law, but it does not automatically determine whether every particular ballot can be conducted electronically. State and territory laws can apply to state-based processes and exemptions can also exist.

For companies, meeting and voting requirements can also arise under the Corporations Act 2001 and the company’s constitution. ASIC, for example, notes specific requirements surrounding virtual-only company meetings.

The answer therefore depends on the organisation and the type of vote.

2. Who is entitled to vote?

An electronic system is only as good as the voter list supplied to it.

Before opening the ballot, confirm:

3. What voting method applies?

Not every election is one-person-one-vote.

You may need to support:

The system needs to reflect the rules of the election.

4. How will the result be challenged?

A good voting process should anticipate questions before they arise.

Ask what records will be available if a member, candidate, union, board or regulator asks:

This is where a proper audit trail becomes valuable.

Electronic voting for Australian workplace ballots

Workplace voting is a good example of where the choice of voting method can have practical consequences.

Protected action ballots are secret votes by eligible employees about whether they want to take industrial action, and the Fair Work Ombudsman confirms that a protected action ballot must be authorised by the Fair Work Commission before employee protected industrial action can proceed.

The rules surrounding these ballots are specific. Organisations should not assume that a generic online survey or ordinary voting form is sufficient.

For workplace ballots, the process may need to accommodate:

The same principle applies to enterprise agreement ballots and other workforce votes: the voting technology should be selected around the legal and procedural requirements, rather than choosing a platform first and trying to fit the process around it.

Electronic voting for AGMs and elections

AGMs often combine several voting requirements.

There may be resolutions, director elections, proxies, polls and different voting entitlements.

For companies, ASIC’s guidance on company meetings and the Corporations Act framework should be considered when determining how voting is conducted. The replaceable rules, for example, provide rules for how resolutions at company meetings are voted on and how challenges to voting rights are handled.

An electronic voting platform can be particularly useful where members are attending remotely.

Instead of asking participants to hold up hands, send emails or submit separate forms, voting can be incorporated into the meeting process.

For a hybrid AGM, that can make the experience considerably cleaner.

Paper ballots vs electronic ballots: common mistakes

Mistake 1: Choosing the cheapest method

The cheapest ballot to administer is not necessarily the cheapest ballot overall.

Consider the cost of staff time, postage, counting, verification and potential disputes.

Mistake 2: Treating an online form as an election system

A standard form may collect responses, but that does not necessarily mean it provides proper voter authentication, ballot secrecy, auditability or election controls.

Mistake 3: Ignoring the governing rules

An organisation should establish whether electronic voting is permitted before selecting a platform.

Mistake 4: Forgetting about voter eligibility

Sending a voting link to the wrong list can create a serious governance problem regardless of whether the ballot is paper or electronic.

Mistake 5: Failing to test the ballot

A typo in a paper ballot is a problem.

A configuration error in an electronic ballot can affect hundreds or thousands of voters.

Test before launch.

Mistake 6: Assuming security is the provider’s problem

The provider should have appropriate security controls, but the organisation still needs to understand what information it supplies, who has administrative access and how the election is governed.

When paper ballots may be the better choice

Paper remains a sensible option when:

There is no prize for digitising a process that does not need digitising.

A simple election should remain simple.

When electronic ballot software is the better choice

Electronic voting becomes increasingly attractive when:

For these types of elections, the operational advantages can be substantial.

The best approach may be a combination of both

There is also a third option that is often overlooked.

You do not necessarily have to choose between “100% paper” and “100% electronic”.

Some organisations use multiple voting channels to accommodate different voters or circumstances.

The critical requirement is that the channels are properly coordinated.

If an organisation allows both paper and electronic voting, it needs a reliable way to:

Adding another channel without managing those issues can make the election harder, not easier.

How Vero Voting approaches electronic ballots

For organisations moving from paper to electronic voting, the platform is only part of the equation.

Vero Voting provides voting and election services for organisations conducting AGMs, elections, workforce ballots, strata voting and other governance processes.

Its online voting platform supports voter authentication, configurable voting processes, automated counting and voting receipts, with additional security options such as two-factor authentication.

For elections, Vero can support the process from nominations through to voting and results, including board, committee, association, university and workforce elections.

For AGMs and hybrid meetings, voting can also be incorporated into the meeting process, allowing members to vote remotely while results are managed through the voting platform.

Vero Voting states that its information security management system is ISO/IEC 27001:2022 certified and that it is SOC 2 Type II audited. ISO/IEC 27001 is an information security management system standard covering requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an ISMS.

The more important question for an organisation, however, is whether the provider’s process actually fits the vote.

That means looking beyond the software interface and asking about eligibility, authentication, secrecy, auditability, counting rules, support and reporting.

So, which is better?

For a small, straightforward election where everyone is physically present, paper can be the better option.

For a large, distributed or complex election, electronic ballot software will often provide significant practical advantages.

The best method is the one that makes the entire voting process more reliable — not simply the one that looks most modern.

Before deciding, assess five things:

If the answer to all five is strong, the voting method is probably fit for purpose.

Key Takeaways

Sources