Election day should be a celebration of democracy, a moment when voters can make their choices freely, based on clear and trusted information. Yet the current rules governing what broadcasters can say while polls are open are outdated. Designed for a slower, analogue world, they now leave voters vulnerable to misinformation at precisely the time they are making critical decisions. At present, the Ofcom regulations require broadcasters to cease all discussion and analysis of election issues once polling stations open.

No commentary, no fact-checking, no rebuttals of even the most glaring falsehoods. Only when polls close can normal reporting resume. The principle behind this approach, to ensure a calm and neutral space for voters, was entirely reasonable when the main sources of information were the daily newspaper or the evening news.

However, the world has moved on. Today, information and disinformation travel at lightning speed through social media, messaging apps, and online platforms. Deepfake videos, fabricated news stories, and viral misinformation campaigns can spread across the country within minutes.

Bad actors, whether political opportunists or foreign states, understand the opportunity election day presents: a window where trusted voices are silenced and misleading content can circulate unchecked.

In this environment, the old rules are not just outdated; they are counterproductive. By preventing broadcasters, who operate under strict editorial standards and regulatory oversight, from responding to misinformation in real time, we create a vacuum that is filled by rumour, conspiracy, and manipulation.

It is important to be clear: no one is suggesting that election day should become a free-for-all of political commentary and broadcast campaigning.

The principle of allowing voters space to make up their minds without being bombarded by last-minute partisan messages remains important. However, a carefully drawn exemption allowing reputable broadcasters to correct demonstrably false information is urgently needed.

A simple, limited reform could make a significant difference. Broadcasters would not be permitted to offer opinion or to promote political positions during polling hours, but they could fact-check viral claims, debunk misinformation, and offer clear and verified corrections.

The emphasis would be on accuracy, impartiality, and public service, values that responsible journalism already upholds.

The need for this change is particularly acute in local elections, which often receive less media coverage and public attention than general elections.

Local contests are vital to the communities they serve, deciding who will be responsible for crucial issues like education, housing, transport, and public health.

Yet they are especially vulnerable to misinformation, precisely because they operate under the radar.

A fake story about a local candidate, a doctored video shared in community Facebook groups, or a malicious rumour spread via WhatsApp could easily sway a significant number of votes, enough to change the outcome.

Under current rules, broadcasters are forbidden from stepping in to correct the record until it is too late. In many cases, the damage will already have been done.

Some argue that fact-checking on election day could open the door to bias or unfair influence. However, this is a false choice.

Trustworthy broadcasters are already well-practised in separating fact from opinion and adhering to strict impartiality standards, particularly during election periods.

Allowing them to publish clear and verifiable corrections would strengthen, not undermine, the fairness of the democratic process.

In fact, doing nothing carries a far greater risk. If voters go to the polls having been misled by false information, the legitimacy of the election itself can be called into question.

Public trust, once damaged, is hard to rebuild, and in an age where faith in democratic institutions is already under strain, we cannot afford to ignore the real dangers posed by misinformation on election day.

We should also be realistic about where voters are getting their information. Broadcasters remain among the most trusted sources of news.

Giving them the ability to act swiftly against misinformation would offer a vital counterbalance to the unregulated and often chaotic world of online content.

It would send a powerful message that truth matters, especially when it matters most.

Updating election day rules is not about giving one side an advantage or tipping the scales of democracy. It is about ensuring that the electorate is equipped with accurate information to make informed choices. It is about recognising that the threats to democracy have evolved and that our defences must evolve too.

Democracy depends not just on the right to vote, but on the right to cast that vote based on facts, not fakes.

As things stand, we are asking voters to make one of the most important decisions they make with their eyes half-closed, while those best placed to inform them are gagged by outdated regulations.

The solution is not easy. It requires political will, careful drafting, and a commitment to the principle that truth is not a partisan weapon but the foundation of democracy itself. A simple and targeted exemption to allow fact-checking during polling hours would better protect voters, support public trust, and strengthen the integrity of our elections at every level.

The world has changed. The threats have changed. Our rules must change too, before the silence of election day becomes a silence that democracy cannot afford.