Debate Report Limited

Voter.Care is a product of Debate Report Limited, a UK company developing the next generation of digital voting infrastructure. Our goal is simple: to build voting systems that are more secure, more transparent, and more trustworthy than the incumbent solutions — and to be able to prove it.

We believe that "trust us, it's secure" is not good enough for democracy. Every security property our systems claim is documented, sourced from peer-reviewed research, and expressed in open-source code that any independent party can audit.

The UK's digital voting market is dominated by a single incumbent whose systems lack end-to-end verifiability. The 2026 Employment Rights Act and accompanying Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Balloting creates a genuine opportunity: trade unions and professional bodies can now run statutory ballots electronically, and the Code requires the "responsible person" to actively assess the security of any proposed voting method.

That requirement is a natural opening for a system that can actually show its work — and that's exactly what Voter.Care is built to do.

Beyond the organisational ballot market, we're also building Votercare Lite for live-event and entertainment voting — starting with our own debate.report platform as an early proving ground.

We don't invent novel cryptographic primitives. We build on established, peer-reviewed protocols: Semaphore for zero-knowledge group membership proofs, ElectionGuard for threshold trustee decryption, Shamir's Secret Sharing for key management, and the Benaloh challenge for cast-as-intended verification.

All technical claims in our design documentation trace to a real, manually verifiable source. Where something can't be sourced, we say so explicitly — and we don't use it.

Before any real votes go through Votercare Max, an independent third-party cryptographic and security audit is a non-negotiable prerequisite. That's not a checkbox — it's the business model. Our value proposition is being more trustworthy than the alternative, and we can only sustain that claim if the code has been independently reviewed.