For years, voting remotes - also called clickers or interactive voting systems for events - were a common tool at congresses, assemblies or meetings. They allowed attendees to answer questions or vote by pressing a button on a physical device handed out at the start of the session.
However, in recent years these systems have become obsolete in the face of modern online voting solutions. online voting from mobile or even totem-type terminals.
In this article we analyze why clickers are disappearing and which technologies are replacing them.
1. Voting remotes: how they worked and why they succeeded.
In the late 2000s and early 2010s, voting control systems were synonymous with modernity. Each participant received a small wireless device with numbered buttons, which was connected to a central receiver. Responses were projected on screen in real time, generating a sense of participation and dynamism.
Original advantages:
- They eliminated manual counting.
- They allowed fast voting in large rooms.
- They eliminated physical ballot boxes.
But that technology did not evolve at the pace of today's needs: traceability, auditing, secure voting and digital accessibility.
2. The problems of control systems
With the accumulated experience, the organizers began to detect important limitations that today relegate these systems to the past:
🔹 Lack of traceability and transparency.
Commands do not verifiably record who voted, how and when. In serious contexts - such as association assemblies or internal or internal elections - this implies legal risk and the possibility of challenges, since the vote cannot be audited.
🔹 Technical errors and logistical constraints.
Clickers require physical receivers, local software and manual synchronization. This leads to frequent incidents: interference, dead batteries, unresponsive devices. Each event must transport, number, distribute and collect tens or hundreds of clickers.
🔹 Delays and operational complexity.
Pre-configuration is time consuming: tests, calibrations, distribution. If a knob is misplaced or a channel fails, the count is blocked. The result is a loss of fluidity that has driven the migration to digital solutions.
🔹 Poor voter experience.
Attendees must be instructed to use the remote control, which is not always intuitive or simple for the elderly. In contrast, the use of cell phones or tablets, devices that we all use every day, eliminates barriers and the need for training, as long as the voting tool used is usable and intuitive.
🔹 Lack of accessibility and digital registration.
Traditional systems do not generate exportable electronic records, which makes it impossible to audit results, comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and automatic and automatic reporting. In the past, it was thought that it was necessary to dispense with auditability to make voting secret. But modern cryptography now makes it possible to maintain the secrecy and traceability of the vote at the same time with so-called end-to-end verifiable systems.
3. The change: from the remote control to the cell phone
The digitalization of voting has completely transformed the way collegiate decision-making processes are managed. Today, both in professional assemblies and in corporate or sporting events, the norm is to vote from a cell phone, tablet or laptop.
Advantages of mobile voting:
- No additional hardware: attendees use their own device (BYOD model).
- Increased traceability and auditing: each vote is encrypted, digitally signed and recorded.
- Immediate configuration: no cables, receivers or physical distribution.
- Remote support: organizers receive online assistance and monitor results in real time.
- Instant and exportable results: lists, graphs and automatic reports.
In addition, solutions such as Kuorum allow voting even in kiosk or totem mode, for users without a smartphone, ensuring total accessibility.
4. Security, legality and accessibility: the new standard.
Voting remotes were never intended for regulated environments or official elections. Today, both Spanish and European regulations demand guarantees that only electronic voting can offer:
- Compliance with GDPR (EU Regulation 2016/679)..
- End-to-end encryption (E2E).
- Verifiable performance auditing according to the Council of Europe.
- Unambiguous voter identification and activity registration.
- Inclusive and accessible design according to W3C principles.
While clickers are closed and non-auditable systems, digital platforms offer transparency, security and traceability. transparency, security and traceability. In addition, their inclusive design allows elderly or digitally inexperienced people to vote easily by PIN, SMS or face-to-face assistance.
5. Comparison: controls vs. digital voting.
6. Back to the future
The pandemic accelerated the digitization of assemblies and events. What began as a necessity has become a standard for efficiency, sustainability and transparency.
Today, organizing a vote with clickers is like projecting slides instead of using a digital screen. Organizations that rely on modern tools for online voting save time and costs, while gaining trust and traceability.
Conclusion
Voting remotes were a good idea at the time, but their time has passed. The natural evolution is digital platforms that allow voting from any device - mobile, laptop or totem - with all the legal and technical guarantees.
If you are thinking about 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.
