This blog is the first in a series exploring modern solutions for accessible voting. Throughout this series, I will discuss the challenges blind and partially sighted voters face, examine outdated approaches such as sequential numbering, and introduce innovative technologies like the McGonagle®Reader. Along the way, we’ll also explore the legal framework governing ballot design, highlighting why modern assistive devices provide a more robust solution for upholding fundamental democratic values.

In a democracy, the right to vote is sacrosanct. Yet, for many blind and partially sighted voters, casting a ballot independently remains an elusive goal. Despite decades of progress in making elections more accessible, practical barriers still undermine the principle of equality at the heart of democracy.

This issue came to national attention in 2019 when Rachael Andrews, a visually impaired voter, successfully challenged the UK Government over inadequate voting provisions for blind and partially sighted citizens. Her victory was a landmark moment for disability rights, confirming that existing accessibility tools failed to deliver the independent and private voting experience guaranteed to all citizens.

Accessible voting is not just a technical matter - it is a human rights issue. A voting system that requires visually impaired citizens to rely on assistance compromises privacy, dignity, and the secrecy of the ballot, which are the foundations of a fair and democratic process.

Estimates suggest that around one million citizens who could otherwise vote abstain, at least in part, due to barriers related to disability.1 Among this group are approximately 35,000 blind or partially sighted individuals for whom traditional voting methods fail to deliver a genuinely independent voting experience.

These voters often rely on assistance from others to mark their ballots, undermining the core democratic principle of privacy. For many, this compromises their confidence and leaves them feeling excluded from the democratic process.

Closing this gap demands more than superficial adjustments. It requires a shift from retrofitted solutions to purpose-built technologies that prioritise independence, privacy, and confidence for blind and partially sighted voters.

The journey toward accessible voting began in 2001, when the UK Home Office held a public competition to design a device that would enable blind and partially sighted citizens to vote independently and in secret. The winning entry, the Selector, was developed by Pakflatt under the leadership of Patrick McGonagle, with invaluable input from the Surrey Voluntary Association for the Blind. This innovative device, deployed nationally in the 2001 UK elections, was later patented as a ground-breaking step forward in voting accessibility.

However, despite its promising origins, the Selector was rebranded by civil servants as the Tactile Voting Device (TVD)—a move aimed at avoiding commercial associations but one that diluted its identity and impact. More critically, the TVD’s reliance on external assistance, requiring voters to have the candidate list read out to them, ultimately failed to uphold the principles of privacy and independence that are fundamental to democratic participation.

This challenge is not unique to the UK. In 2017, the Irish Government faced a similar legal reckoning in the Dublin High Court, where Robbie Sinnott, a citizen blind from birth, challenged the inadequacy of voting provisions for visually impaired voters. Patrick McGonagle, as Pakflatt CEO and a recognised expert, provided testimony based on his experience with the Selector. The court ruled in Sinnott’s favour, leading the Irish Government to commission Pakflatt to design a solution compatible with Ireland’s proportional representation system using a single transferable vote (PR-STV). The result, the Ballot Paper Template (BPT), introduced a tactile system enabling voters to rank candidates independently. Still in use today, the BPT demonstrates how tailored, purpose-built solutions can uphold voter privacy and autonomy, even within complex electoral systems.

Mr Justice Swift, presiding over Rachael Andrews’ case in the UK, described the TVD system as “a parody of the electoral process.” Taken together, these cases reveal a common theme: retrofitted solutions like the TVD consistently fall short of delivering genuine equality. Instead, the future of accessible voting lies in modern, adaptable technologies such as the McGonagle Reader, which prioritise privacy, independence, and dignity for all voters.

Enter the McGonagle®Reader. Building on lessons learned from the Selector and other historical attempts, the McGonagle Reader represents a new generation of accessible voting technology.

Unlike outdated tools that require voters to navigate complex systems or rely on assistance, the McGonagle®Reader combines tactile and audio prompts to guide voters directly to the correct spot on the ballot paper. By stating candidate names aloud or providing them via braille overlays, it allows blind and partially sighted voters to engage with the ballot independently. This eliminates the need for sequential numbering or external assistance, significantly reducing the risk of errors and restoring the dignity of casting a secret vote.

The McGonagle®Reader is also highly adaptable. It can accommodate different ballot designs, languages, and even legislative changes, making it a future-proof solution for accessible voting across diverse electoral contexts.

This blog has introduced the pressing need for modern solutions to address the disability voting gap. However, this is just the beginning of the conversation. In the next blog, I will take a closer look at the history and legal considerations surrounding sequential numbering on ballots - a proposed solution that may seem helpful but suffers from profound flaws.