Is your Government thinking of UX?

The other day I was filling out a government form online. Three tabs, two error messages, one expired session, and a PDF I had to print, sign, scan, and upload. By the end of it, I wasn't angry. I was just tired. And I caught myself thinking the same thing I think when an app frustrates me: who designed this, and did they ever actually use it?

That question stuck with me. Because if you really sit with it, choosing a government isn't all that different from choosing a service. The best service provider is the one that understands its users and shapes itself around their needs. In a democracy, we are the users. So maybe the principles I use every day as a UX designer aren't a bad lens for deciding who should run the country.

Here's how I'd think about it.

Does it actually solve real problems?

Good design starts with empathy — not with a clever idea, but with a real understanding of the people you're designing for. The best policies work the same way. When I look at what a candidate is promising, I try to ask a simple question: is this solving an actual problem people have, or is it solving a problem that sounds good in a speech? User-centric design means the people in charge have bothered to understand the messy reality of everyday life before deciding what to build for it.

Is it simple, or is it a maze?

The best products are usually the simplest ones. You don't need a manual to use them. Government should aim for the same thing. Every extra form, every unnecessary office visit, every "please come back with one more document" is friction — and friction is a design failure. When services are easy to access, more people actually use them. So when I judge a government, I look at how much effort it takes a normal person to get something done. The harder it is, the worse the design.

Does it work for everyone, not just the lucky few?

Inclusivity isn't a nice-to-have in design; it's the whole point. A product that only works for the able-bodied, the wealthy, or the tech-savvy isn't well designed — it's just designed for a narrow slice of people. The same goes for healthcare, education, and social support. I want a government that treats accessibility as a baseline, making sure essential services reach people regardless of income, ability, or where they happen to live.

Can I see what's happening, and can I push back?

Every good design process has a feedback loop. You ship something, you watch how people use it, you listen, you fix it. Governments should run on the same rhythm. That means being transparent about how decisions get made and where money goes — but also genuinely inviting feedback and acting on it. Transparency without a feedback loop is just a window you can look through but never open. I want both.

Is it willing to keep improving?

Technology never sits still, and neither should public services. The version of "good enough" from ten years ago is rarely good enough today. I look for leaders who treat innovation as ongoing maintenance, not a one-time announcement — people who'll adopt better tools and better methods because they make life easier, not because they make a nice headline. And alongside that, I watch for responsiveness: how quickly does a government actually react when something breaks or someone raises a concern? Slow systems erode trust the same way a frozen loading screen does.

So, what's your government's UX like?

None of this requires a design degree. You already make these judgments dozens of times a week, every time you abandon a clunky website or recommend an app that just works. We're remarkably good at sensing when something was built with us in mind versus built to tick a box. I'm only suggesting we point that same instinct at the biggest "service" in our lives.

So next time there's an election — or honestly, the next time you're stuck on hold or buried in paperwork — ask the designer's question: who is this built for, and was it built with them in mind? The answer tells you more than most campaign promises ever will.

What kind of government would you design if you could? And is there a principle I've missed that you'd add to the list? I'd love to hear it.