Technology under pressure: First observations from the Latvian local elections
By Priit Vinkel
Latvia’s 2025 local elections were meant to mark a digital milestone — instead, they became a case study in the challenges of tech-enabled democratic procedures.
The 2025 local elections in Latvia, held in early June, were expected to demonstrate how modern digital tools can make voting and tallying more convenient and efficient. A key improvement implemented this year was the ability for voters to cast their ballots at any polling station within their municipality, thanks to a centralised online voter register. The vote-counting process was also upgraded to a digital scanning system, developed and maintained by the State Digital Agency (VDAA), with overall election oversight provided by the Central Election Commission (CVK).
Despite these innovations, the election night turned out to be unexpectedly chaotic. As polls closed and vote counting began, technical failures emerged. Scanning systems used for counting the ballots experienced widespread breakdowns and holdups across the country. Long queues formed, delays increased, and officials on the ground had to revert to manual counting methods. The transition to manual work under pressure, with incomplete or unclear instructions, and delayed voting results created frustration among both voters and election staff. Political calls for institutional accountability soon followed, with an official inquiry launched to assess the entire chain of responsibility.
As it turned out, the digital vote-counting system struggled to cope with real-time demands. Although tested in advance, the system failed to reflect the actual intensity and complexity of the election day operations.
So, what can we learn from this experience?
- Large-scale, timely, and realistic stress tests are essentialbefore deploying any digital system for elections. Election contexts are unique: time-bound, high-pressure, and not tolerant of error.
- Polling station staff require clear and practical training to manage both digital and manual workflows,particularly under stress. There needs to be a clear plan B in case of an emergency.
- Strong cooperation and coordination modelsbetween the implementing agencies must be established and maintained. Ultimately, the CVK must act as the nexus of the process, taking full responsibility, including having sufficient ICT capacity to effectively oversee and manage the entire electoral (ICT) infrastructure.
The Latvian case is a reminder that digital transformation is not just about software. It is about institutions, processes, planning, and the people involved. So far, we can conclude that enhanced preparation, comprehensive training, and a stronger coordinated authority over the election process would be the way forward.
Latvia has taken a significant step forward by embracing additional digital tools in elections. The lessons from this year’s disruption, if handled properly, can lead to stronger systems, more resilient institutions, and renewed trust among voters. This moment offers an opportunity to strengthen foundations and move confidently towards a more robust and reliable electoral future.