In recent years, many organizations have chosen to hold their meetings and votes online. Platforms such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams or Webex offer features for conducting polls and surveys, which at first glance may seem like a good alternative for remote voting.
On Zoom, for example, the host can create multiple-choice questions and share the results instantly; in Microsoft Teams, the integration with Forms allows quick polls to collect impressions or assess participant satisfaction. These types of surveys are perfect for making meetings more dynamic or gathering feedback, but they are not designed for processes with legal validity, as they do not guarantee voter identity or the integrity of the results.
Using Zoom, Teams or Webex for elections or formal meetings can jeopardize the validity of the results, leading to challenges and even invalidating key decisions for the entity. Solutions such as Kuorumallow you to digitize your organization's virtual meetings with legal and technical guarantees, avoiding improvised solutions.
Why Zoom, Teams, or Webex Polls Do Not Guarantee the Validity of the Vote
1. They do not comply with electronic identification regulations
International electronic identification regulations (such as the eIDAS in Europe or the ESIGN Act n the United States) establish that electronic identification processes must guarantee integrity, traceability and non-repudiation of authentication. Zoom, Teams, and Webex lack verification mechanisms that comply with these standards. Anyone can join using a shared link or an altered name, which compromises the authenticity of the vote and makes it impossible to certify voters’ identities or ensure that each member votes only once.
Organizations that use these video conferencing systems for their assemblies and wish to identify attendees legally often create a waiting room where participants show their ID documents to the camera one by one. While this workaround is creative, it is highly impractical and causes significant delays at the start of the sessions.
2. There is no immutable evidence
For a vote to have legal validity, there must be an immutable record of the entire process: who accessed it, when, by what authentication method, and what result was obtained. In a formal process such as a professional association election, an assembly, or a vote on bylaws, this evidence is essential
Zoom or Teams polls do not generate digitally signed records or minutes, making it impossible to prove the legitimacy of the results before a court in the event of a challenge.
3. The vote is not truly anonymous
Another common mistake is to assume that the “anonymized” polls in these tools guarantee the secrecy of the vote. In reality, they only partially anonymize the data, preventing the administrator from viewing it, but they do not protect it from external audits or access to the platform’s databases.
This means that, in the event of an audit, an expert could identify each person’s vote, thereby violating the principle of anonymity required in electoral processes.
In systems designed to comply with the law, such as Kuorum votes are encrypted using homomorphic cryptography, which prevents anyone, including auditors, from knowing their content, while maintaining a verifiable record that ensures the validity of the results.
4. Quorum calculation and accreditations
In meetings with legal validity, it is essential to verify who is present and who does or does not have the right to vote.
Neither Zoom nor Teams allow you to manage voter lists, record attendance, or automatically verify quorum. This forces organizers to perform manual checks, which increases the margin of error and makes it harder to validate the minutes afterward.
5. Vote delegations and weightings
Many professional associations and organizations include in their bylaws provisions for vote delegations or weightings based on the voter’s category (for example, full members, honorary members, or active practitioners).
Generic platforms do not offer any way to apply these rules automatically. As a result, any attempt to vote with delegations or weighted votes must be carried out outside the video call, fragmenting the process and reducing its coherence and legal security.
6. Automatic minutes and certifications
After the vote, it is essential to generate a document that certifies the results and the progress of the session. This record must include the details of the call, the list of attendees, the agreements reached, and the electronic evidence required to support its authenticity.
Zoom or Teams cannot generate or digitally sign minutes nor can they timestamp results, which prevents these documents from having evidentiary value before third parties.
7. Usability in hybrid events
Although some organizations already hold their assemblies and meetings 100% online, the trend is to organize hybrid events, with part of the attendees in person in the boardroom and another part attending remotely. In this type of event, it is not possible to consolidate everyone's vote in a convenient way. Tools like Kuorum discern between people in the room and people at home to show them voting streams with or without video. Thus it is possible to vote in a few seconds and see the results on screen instantly regardless of the mode of attendance.
8. Utility in the pre-assembly periods
The registration and RSVP processes of tools such as Zoom and Teams are designed for events without legal implications. And they can be complex when it comes to organizing an assembly with proxy or advance voting. Kuorum not only provides value during voting, but also during the convocation, confirmation of attendance and proxy voting phase. Thanks to its census manager and its email sending engine, it is possible to easily manage individuals, legal entities with one or more proxies, proxy voting, online and in-person attendance confirmations, and update census data. In addition, it has administration profiles with different roles that facilitate the teamwork of the organizers.
The safe alternative: specialized tools such as Kuorum
These functionalities do not exist in generalist platforms, but they are integrated in specialized tools such as Kuorum. For us, technology must be an ally of transparency and security.
Therefore, from Kuorum we developed a platform specifically designed for professional associations, unions, associations and organizations to hold online votes and meetings with full legal validity.
We comply with electronic identification regulations in several countries, guarantee the secure authentication of each participant and use homomorphic encryption to protect the anonymity of the vote.
Our dedication to security and quality is backed by recognized certifications, such as ISO certifications and the National Security Scheme (CCN-CERT), which guarantees that our processes and systems comply with the highest international standards.
In addition, Kuorum allows:
- Control attendance and quorum in real time.
- Manage delegations and weightings automatically.
- Generate certified and auditable minutes.
- Integrate voting into face-to-face, hybrid or 100% online meetings.
Thanks to these functionalities, decisions taken in a digital environment have the same legal value as if they had been made in person. And in the event of a challenge, you can count on the support of a team that has already successfully completed various legal processes.
Conclusion: digitizing is not improvising
Holding a Zoom or Teams vote may seem practical, but it does not guarantee the legality or transparency of the process. If the goal is to digitize your organization's voting processes, the key is to do it with secure, verifiable and purpose-built tools.
With Kuorum, your institution can move towards a more efficient, modern and fully compliant digital management.
