Scratch-and-Vote System Could Help Eliminate Election FraudA new lottery-style scratch card has been developed that might make elections less susceptible to rigging.
Compared with modern touch-screen voting systems, it may seem low tech. But according to its creators, the scratch-and-vote (S&V) system is a good way to let voters check that their ballot papers have been counted as they intended.
Using a current touch-screen system, "there is no way for an individual voter to know that his or her vote has been properly counted," says Josh Benaloh, a cryptographer who pioneered the development of cryptography in elections, and who now works for Microsoft Research in Redmond, WA. "Even election officials cannot be certain that the systems are free of errors." Some of these machines are now designed to print paper receipts for each vote that's cast. This procedure is a little better, says Benaloh; but voters are still dependent on other people and procedures. "In practice, voters have no way to ensure that their votes are being counted properly or that they are being counted at all," he says. With encryption-based voting systems, end-to-end verifiability is possible, because any voter should be able to "audit" the entire voting process. At the same time, such auditing processes must be balanced against the need for anonymity, says Ben Adida at MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. Adida created the S&V system with Ronald Rivest, professor of electrical engineering and computer science at MIT, who co-created RSA, one of the most widely used encryption algorithms. Traditional paper-based systems do not provide sufficient anonymity because the unique number printed on the ballot to ensure that it is legitimate can be traced back to the voter's name. Therefore, a number of researchers have tried using cryptographic techniques to keep a voter's identity a secret while ensuring that all votes cast are legitimate. The S&V approach builds on this idea and can be used in conjunction with a number of existing voting schemes. One recently proposed scheme, called Prêt-à-Voter, involves the listing the candidates' names in random order on one half of the ballot, with the tick boxes on the opposite side. After votes have been cast, a voter tears along a perforated line separating the list of names from the tick boxes. Developed by Peter Ryan at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne in England and David Chaum, a cryptographer who founded DigiCash, the system depends on a cryptographic code on the tick-box side of the ballot to encode the list of candidates' names in the order they appeared on the original ballot. The concern with this kind of system is how to ensure that the information encrypted matches the order of the candidates' names. This can be achieved by giving each voter two ballot papers. The voters choose which ballot is audited and which they'll use to cast their vote. This audit process tells them nothing about the validity of the ballot paper itself -- but it does provide a 50:50 chance of spotting a rigged ballot paper. And, given such a high probability, illegitimate ballot papers would quickly show up in an entire electorate. The S&V approach makes this auditing process secure because it allows a ballot paper to be checked without having to involve an election official (who in theory could be corrupt and tamper with a ballot). When applied to the Prêt-à-Voter scheme, S&V adds a scratch surface on the side bearing the candidates' names, while the order of the candidates' names is encoded cryptographically beneath the tick boxes. "This scratch surface is exactly like a lottery card," says Adida.
|
Hack: How to Steal an Election
11/01/2006










Comments
08/09/2006
Posts:1
08/09/2006
Posts:1
08/09/2006
Posts:1
08/09/2006
Posts:1
08/09/2006
Posts:1
08/09/2006
Posts:1
I know what you mean!!
08/09/2006
Posts:1
head count broadcast on net realtime
easy spot line size different
08/09/2006
Posts:1
1. Anyone who walks up to a touch screen terminal can vote; it's up to the elections officials to police the perimeter around the terminals.
Each registered voter can be given a card that is good for 1 vote, but again this card is not connected to the user's name in any way.
Each voter is assigned a number (this has no connection to their name) and gets a printed receipt for their vote.
2. The number of votes cast must match the number of people who signed in at any given precinct (this keeps extra votes from being cast).
3. User's can match their number to published results in the days following the election (newspaper, online, etc) to make sure that their vote was counted for the correct person and that it matches their receipt.
This method gives you anonymity and auditability.
08/09/2006
Posts:1
08/09/2006
Posts:1
Last time I voted it worked like this:
1. Went to checkin table, they checked me off the roster.
2. Was handed numbered ballot by election official. No record was made linking my name to the ballot.
3. Went into booth and marked ballot.
4. Took ballot to scanner, inserted into scanner.
5. Scanner verifies ballot correct (no double votes, all legible), counts ballot.
6. Ballot dropped into ballot box for recount, if needed.
Note that:
a. no link between me and numbered ballot.
b. I see the ballot counted and in the box (clear path from scanner to box).
3. Any issues, manual recount possible - human eyes looking at legible paper ballot.
08/09/2006
Posts:1
This is NOT a trivial problem.
08/09/2006
Posts:1
I've heard a diff't plan: you vote in the machine which prints your vote, which you inspect and deposit elsewhere (to be scanned, say). In the end the scanned totals by candidate must match the machine's tally. Redundant but safer. Built-in audit.
08/09/2006
Posts:1
However, the "paper-verified" position is not simple-minded. Its purpose is to have an unalterable human-verifiable record which can be used to audit the reported results of the electionic voting machine. The problem is that the paper receipt style that most touch-screen electronic voting machines have are clunky add-ons that are there only for HAVA compliance and are not counted as the official voting record.
The simplest, cheapest solution is a simple OMR form that the voter actually marks himself and is the official record of the voter's intent (not some electronic record). There is no need to make this more complicated.
08/09/2006
Posts:1
08/09/2006
Posts:1
The trouble starts when e-voting machines are also given the responsibility of tallying the votes. To deserve voters' trust, the process of counting the votes must be open and transparent, and there's nothing transparent about silicon circuitry. As has been said before, the purpose of counting votes is to convince the losers that they lost; if the losers can't see the votes being counted, there's no way to settle the arguments.
[continued...]
08/11/2006
Posts:1
[continued...]
08/11/2006
Posts:1
A system like the one I've described has been designed and prototyped by the Open Voting Consortium. You can read all about it at <www.openvoting.org>.
08/11/2006
Posts:1
08/10/2006
Posts:1
08/14/2006
Posts:1
08/10/2006
Posts:1
Any scheme that enables a voter to determine whether his/her vote was counted correctly suffers from an inherent flaw-- it also would enable the voter to prove how s/he voted to someone else. That ability opens the door to vote buying and intimidation. It's to prevent such inducements that we have polling places where voters' privacy is protected (yes, mail-in voting suffers from the same flaw, which is why it should be abolished).
This is one of those problems that's easier to solve if it is generalized. If a voter is convinced that all votes are counted correctly, it follows that his/her vote is counted correctly. This calls for a system in which vote counting is open and transparent, based on paper ballots (not necessarily marked by hand) which can be counted as many times, in as many different ways, as necessary to satisfy skeptics.
08/11/2006
Posts:1
1/ their vote intent is correctly encrypted in their receipt.
2/ The tabulation process decrypts all receipts correctly.
However, the tabulation process anonymises the votes by losing any link between encrypted receipts and decrypted votes.
Thus, the voters can be assured that their vote is accurately counted as cast whilst not having any way to prove to a 3rd party how they voted.
Reading the original papers should make this clear.
08/15/2006
Posts:1
08/13/2006
Posts:1
e-Nano
08/18/2006
Posts:1