Does Nationwide 2026 AGM Voting Form Design Help Members Make an Informed Choice on How to Vote?

---

Bigger image size: 2026 Nationwide AGM James Sherwin-Smith Paper Voting Form instructions

A few weeks ago I wrote an article asking:

Will ballot design matter in Nationwide’s 2026 Board Election?

At the time, I did not know how the voting form would look.

Now I do. Members began receiving their voting packs this week and electronic voting is open. The design of the ballot is no longer hypothetical. It can be examined directly.

Having now seen the ballot, I think there are some important questions for Members, journalists, Parliamentarians and governance experts to consider.

The first thing Members see is the Quick Vote

When voting online, the first page asks Members:

Please choose how you would like to vote

The first option presented is the “Quick Vote”.

Immediately underneath, Members are told:

“The Board recommends you vote ‘For’ each of the items 1-13. The Board recommends you vote ‘Against’ item 14.”

Item 14 is my election. It doesn’t mention me by name.

Members are then invited:

“If you are happy with this, simply put your X in the Quick vote box below.”

if you do this, the “Standard vote” option that exists underneath this section, and lists every resolution in full e.g. each candidates by name, immediately disappears on the electronic Voting Form. If you’re on a mobile device – and I expect a lot of voters use their mobile – you have just voted without seeing the resolutions at all, including the names of peope you are voting for (all current directors) and against (me).

The ballot is clearly designed so that the simplest course of action is to adopt the Board’s recommendations in a single click.

That may be perfectly legal. However Members may conclude that a mutual organisation should encourage them to consider each item individually.

What happens if you choose Quick Vote?

This was one of the questions I raised earlier this year.

The answer is now clear. If a Member ticks the Quick Vote box, the detailed voting form disappears and is replaced by a “Next” button.

Only on the following confirmation page do Members see the effect of their decision. The confirmation page states:

“I agree with the Board’s recommendations. I would like to appoint the Chairman as my representative to vote FOR items 1-13 and Against item 14.”

The confirmation page does display each resolution individually, including my candidacy:

“14. To elect James Sherwin-Smith — Against.”

Members can still go back and change their vote before submitting.

But the structure of this process is clear:

One click accepts the Board’s position on every resolution and every candidate.

Using the Standard vote: My earlier concerns about candidate presentation have materialised

In my earlier article, I asked whether Nationwide would present me alongside the other candidates or place me in a separate category. Nationwide has chosen the latter.

The change is subtle but important – under last year’s design, I would have appeared 3rd on the ballot, between the Deputy Chair (who will take over from the Chair at the AGM, if successfully elected) and the CEO, by nature of seeking election for the first time, and my surname starting with an S.

The format of the Notice of AGM has been changed, effectively promoting the current Board candidates to page 1, and relegating me to page 2. Previously all candidates appeared on page 2, with photos. Please compare versions for yourself and draw you own conclusions.

• 2021 Notice of AGM
• 2022 Notice of AGM
• 2023 Notice of AGM
• 2024 Notice of AGM
• 2025 Notice of AGM
• 2026 Notice of AGM – board candidates promoted to first page for the first time

Further, I have not been included in the Society’s “Who are you voting for?” booklet alongside the other candidates. Nationwide has updated its photography assets so that the design of my submitted Election Address (using Nationwide’s 2025 design) doesn’t match the glossier 2026 version. Again, please compare versions and draw your own conclusions.

• 2023 Who are you voting for
• 2024 Who are you voting for
• 2025 Who are you voting for
• 2026 Who are you voting for – new format, doesn’t include me, doesn’t match the 2025 design I followed

Instead, I have been presented separately as a Member Nominated Candidate, preceded by the Board’s recommendation on the cover that Members vote Against my election, which is then repeated twice more on page 2 alongside a detailed explanation of the Board’s reasoning that I “did not demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction that he had the skills or experience required to serve effectively as a Member Nominated Director”. Read My counter to Nationwide’s statements made today regarding my suitability.

Members may consider this an appropriate distinction. Others may ask whether the first Member Nominated Candidate in more than 20 years should have been presented alongside the other candidates, allowing Members to compare them on a more equal footing. For example see Guide to Voting 2003.

I raised these concerns before the ballot was published because, in low-information elections, presentation matters.

Small choices about grouping, ordering and framing can influence who gets noticed, who gets ignored, and how Members approach their decisions.

The proxy arrangement deserves more attention

One aspect of the ballot surprised me. The voting instructions explain:

“If you do not want to vote on every item of business, just leave that line of boxes blank and your Chairman or representative will vote on it on your behalf.”

If a Member does not appoint someone else as their representative, the Chairman acts by default.

The confirmation screen then shows blank votes as:

Discretionary

This means a Member may:

• vote on some resolutions;
• abstain on others i.e. leave some blank;

and the Chairman may then exercise discretion on the unresolved items.

This is disclosed on the Voting Form – and was confirmed in writing to me by Civica Election Services – the “independent scrutineer” paid for by Nationwide.

But I suspect many Members will not appreciate the practical effect.

Again, readers may draw their own conclusions about whether this arrangement encourages active Member participation or merely simplifies administration.

Any if voting Members would like to appoint me as their Representative, they can do that by entering these details in the appropriate part of the form:

• James Sherwin-Smith – customer number 7161359006
• Westbrook, Lake View Road, Furnace Wood, East Grinstead, West Sussex RH19 2QE

Why I wanted to amend my Election Address

For two months before the Board announced its decision, I repeatedly told Nationwide that if the Board decided to retain Quick Vote and recommend Members vote Against me, I would like the opportunity to update my Election Address accordingly.

The amendment I wanted to make was modest. I wanted to explain that if Members wished to support my candidacy, and anticipating a competitive election where I might need to unseat a board candidate (as two MNCs did previously – Sheila Heywood and David English) to be elected Members’ would need to vote tactically. I proactively submitted an alternative version to Nationwide (as I had last year), before Nationwide communicated the Board’s decisions on how the Election would be conducted.

The additional 18 words (within the total 500 word limit) that Nationwide refused to add were:

, and AGAINST all other candidates given the use of the Quick Vote. DO NOT USE THE QUICK VOTE.

18 word addendum to my Election Address in the event the Quick vote is not suspended, refused by Nationwide

On the same call with Nationwide, communicating the Board’s decision, the Society Secretary also disclosed that it had removed (without my permission) the sentence “Learn more at James4Nationwide.co.uk” from the top and bottom of my Election Address, and a QR code that directs people to the same web address. This was odd given web addresses (and a range of other contact details for Members to access more information) were supplied by Member Nominated Candidates in the past – see page 8 of the Nationwide AGM Guide to Voting in 2003.

I have raised concerns with both Nationwide and the FCA regarding these issues and continue to seek clarification regarding the legal basis on which part of my submitted material was removed. See The Information I Wanted to Give Members Before They Vote for more detail, and this press release where I disclose my request to the FCA to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute Nationwide as per Subsection 7 of Section 61 of the Building Societies Act (1986).

The broader question

This article is not really about whether Quick Vote is legal.

Nor is it simply about my candidacy.

The broader question is this:

What should democracy look like inside a mutual organisation?

Should Members be encouraged to:

• consider candidates individually?
• access additional information?
• make their own judgments, without nudging or steering?

Or is it acceptable for the Board to prominently recommend an entire slate of votes and provide a one-click mechanism for Members to adopt them wholesale, as well as adulterate a candidates election address? Such practices are prohibited by law in other context e.g. Trade Union elections.

This year, 2026, is the first time in more than 20 years that Nationwide Members have had the opportunity to elect a Member Nominated Candidate to the Board.

That makes these questions more important than they have been for a generation.

I encourage Members to:

• read the voting materials carefully;
• understand how the Quick Vote works;
• consider what the Chairman acting as your Appointed Representative means if you abstain from voting on any of the resolutions;
• evaluate all candidates on their merits; and
• make an informed choice, after hearing different perspectives.

Ultimately, Nationwide belongs to its Members.

The decision should be theirs.

By James Sherwin-Smith
Member Nominated Candidate for Election to the Board of Nationwide Building Society