For years, voting clickers - also know as audience response systems or interactive voting devices for events - were a common tool at conferences, assemblies, and corporate meetings. They allowed participants to answer questions or cast their votes by pressing a button on a physical device handed out at the beginning of the session.
However, in recent years these systems havehave become obsolete compared to modern online voting solutions, which allow participants to vote directly from their mobile phones or even from kiosk-style terminals.
In this article, we examine why voting clickers are disappearing and which technologies are replacing them.
1. Voting clickers: how they worked and why they became popular
In the late 2000s and early 2010s, voting clicker systems were synonymous with modernity. Each participant received a small wireless device with numbered buttons, which connected to a central receiver. Responses were projected on a screen in real time, creating a sense of engagement and dynamism.
Original advantages:
- They eliminated manual counting.
- They allowed quick voting in large rooms.
- They removed the need for physical ballot boxes
However, this technology did not evolve in line with current needs: traceability, auditing, secure voting and digital accessibility.
2. Problems with Voting Clicker Systems
With the experience gained, organizers began to identify significant limitations that today relegate these systems to the past:
🔹 Lack of Traceability and Transparency
Voting clickers do not record in a verifiable way who voted, how, or when. In serious contexts - such as association meetings or internal elections - this poses a legal risk and the possibility of challenges, since votes cannot be audited.
🔹 Technical Errors and Logistical Limitations
Voting clickers require physical receivers, local software, and manual synchronization. This leads to frequent issues: interference, dead batteries, and unresponsive devices. Each event also requires transporting, numbering, distributing, and collecting dozens or even hundreds of clickers.
🔹 Delays and Operational Complexity
Pre-event setup consumes time: testing, calibrations, and distribution. If a clicker is lost or a channel fails, the vote count is blocked. The result is a loss of smooth workflow, which has driven the shift to digital solutions.
🔹 Poor Voter Experience
Participants need instructions to use the clicker, which is not always intuitive or easy for older attendees. In contrast, using mobile phones or tablets - devices everyone uses daily - removes barriers and the need for training, as long as the voting tool is user-friendly and intuitive.
🔹 Lack of Digital Accessibility and Recordkeeping
Traditional systems do not generate exportable electronic records, which prevents auditing results, complying with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and generating automated reports. In the past, it was believed that auditability had to be sacrificed to ensure vote secrecy. However, modern cryptography now allows both secrecy and traceability of votes at the same time through so-called end-to-end verifiable systems.
3. The Shift: From Clickers to Mobile Voting
The digitalization of voting has completely transformed the way collective decision-making processes are managed. Today, whether in professional assemblies, corporate events, or sports meetings, the standard is to vote using a mobile phone, tablet, or laptop.
Advantages of Mobile Voting:
- No additional hardware: participants use their own devices (BYOD model).
- Greater traceability and auditing: each vote is encrypted, digitally signed and recorded.
- Immediate setup: no cables, receivers, or physical distribution needed.
- Remote support: organizers receive online assistance and monitor results in real time.
- Instant and exportable results: automatic lists, charts, and reports.
In addition, solutions like Kuorum allow voting even in kiosk mode, ffor users without a smartphone, ensuring full accessibility.
4. Security, Legality, and Accessibility: The New Standard
Voting clickers were never designed for regulated environments or official elections. Today, both Spanish and European regulations require guarantees that only electronic voting can provide:
- Compliance with GDPR (EU Regulation 2016/679)..
- End-to-end (E2E) encryption.
- Verifiable audit of results according to the Council of Europe.
- Unambiguous voter identification and activity logging.
- Inclusive and accessible design according to W3C guidelines.
While clickers are closed and non-auditable systems, digital platforms offer transparency, security and traceability. Additionally, their inclusive design allows older users or those with limited digital experience to vote easily via PIN, SMS, or on-site assistance.
5. Comparison: Clickers vs. Digital Voting.
6. Back to the future
The pandemic accelerated the digitization of assemblies and events. What began as a necessity has now become a standard due to efficiency, sustainability, and transparency.
Today, organizing a vote with clickers is like projecting slides instead of using a digital screen. Organizations that choose modern online voting save time and costs while gaining trust and traceability.
Conclusion
Voting clickers were a good idea in their time, but their era has passed. The natural evolution is digital platforms that allow voting from any device - mobile, laptop, or kiosk - with full legal and technical guarantees.
If you’re considering modernizing your voting system, request a demo of Kuorum and discover how our online voting platform combines security, accessibility and personalized support for your events.
