Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

First Test for Election Cryptography

Novel voting technology will be used in a local government election.

By Erica Naone

Monday, November 02, 2009

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

The first government election to use a new cryptographic scheme that lets both voters and auditors check that votes were cast and recorded accurately will be held tomorrow in Takoma Park, MD.

Vote with confidence: Scantegrity lets voters check to see that their votes are counted correctly. When the voter marks a bubble on a ballot (top) a secret code is revealed. The voter can then record that code (middle), and check online later (bottom) to make sure his vote was counted correctly.
Credit: Scantegrity

Election controversies like the infamous Florida recounts during the 2000 U.S. presidential election have highlighted the need for more accountable voting technologies, especially for confirming the results of tight races. The system being used in Takoma Park, called Scantegrity, uses cryptography to confirm that votes were counted properly. Its inventors say the system could eliminate the need for recounts and provide better assurance that an election was conducted properly.

After votes are cast, Scantegrity lets voters check online to make sure that their ballots were counted correctly. Officials and independent auditors can also check to make sure ballots were tallied properly--without seeing how any individual voted.

To a voter, Scantegrity shouldn't present much of a change, explains David Chaum, who invented the system and who previously founded an early electronic-currency corporation called Digicash. A voter takes a paper ballot and fills in the bubble next to the name of his selected candidate, then feeds the ballot into a machine, which scans it and secretly records the result.

The difference is that a special type of ink and pen are used. When the voter fills in a bubble on the ballot using the pen, a previously invisible secret code appears in that space. The voter can record the code or codes and then check them later online. If the code is found in an online database, it means the voter's ballot was counted correctly. Each ballot has its own randomly assigned codes, to prevent this process from revealing which candidates a voter selected.

Scantegrity lets auditors check other aspects of an election as well. First, it lets them confirm that the ballots are printed properly, because each ballot gets its own set of secret codes hidden in the bubbles. Prior to an election, officials can publicly commit to the codes that will be printed on the ballots. To make sure that this is done correctly, auditors choose half the ballots at random and fill in all the bubbles, making sure the codes match what was supposed to be printed. These test ballots are then discarded--but the process means it's extremely likely that the rest of the ballots were printed correctly.

Story continues below

Scantegrity also shows an auditor whether votes were recorded correctly. To protect voter privacy, it's never possible to link a specific ballot to a specific set of candidate names. But election officials provide two lists--a list of codes corresponding to votes and a list of the results. From the lists it's possible to confirm that the codes do lead to the recorded votes without actually revealing how people voted. The effect, Chaum says, is to ensure that everything is secure from the time ballots are printed up until completion of the audit. "Without that," he says, "it's just a waste of time to recount [ballots]."

Scantegrity makes it possible to audit elections with much greater certainty than has been possible before, even with paper systems, according to Alan Sherman, an associate professor of computer science at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, who is involved with the effort. "It's fundamentally different, it's fundamentally better with respect to outcome integrity," he says.

Comments

  • [no subject]
    A verifiable ballot is great at reducing one form of potential corruption. The downside is that it is then also possible for thugs to pressure or pay people to vote for a given candidate. The voter can be pressured to reveal his ballot code to demonstrate that he voted as told.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    uncleshred
    11/02/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • ballots are still private
    Hi there,

    The entire purpose of a system such as described above is to maintain the voter's privacy. My sources told me it's a trivial matter to make a verifiable voting system if you don't worry about privacy. The complexity of the scheme I described in this story was entirely caused by the need to maintain privacy in the process.

    Even with the ballot serial number and the secret code, no one would be able to tell how the user voted.

    The beauty of the system is that the validity of the process can be verified despite this fact. The links between secret codes and the results of voting can be confirmed _without_ actually tracing particular ballots to particular voting patterns.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Erica Naone
    11/02/2009
    Posts:43
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • I'm Missing Something...
    This will work to verify that my vote was tallied the same way it was cast, but it doesn't appear to do anything for fraudulent ballot box stuffing. Since not every voter will verify their results, you can't determine that the unverified votes correspond to real voters. Is there something I'm missing?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    theradicalmo...
    11/03/2009
    Posts:13
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • Please clarify
    The second commenter (the author?) said "Even with the ballot serial number and the secret code, no one would be able to tell how the user voted." But isn't that how the voter checks that the vote is properly recorded?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    robert.hargr...
    11/04/2009
    Posts:27
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • Receipts do not compromise anonymity or vote privacy
    When a receipt is verified, you only get to see that the code corresponds to the one you jotted down at election time. Neither this code nor the receipt contains any information on *what* you voted for.

    However, you know that the confirmation codes are different for each option. Therefore, if the confirmation codes match the ones you wrote down on your receipt, you know that your vote was counted. If they are not present, you know it was not. If they do not match, you can file an incidence, and prove that somebody switched your vote around.

    And to avoid ballot-stuffing, you can ask for ballot pages to take with you home (and therefore not cast) -- if any of their codes show up as cast, you have evidence of malfeasance.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    visitor
    11/04/2009
    Posts:1

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Making 3D Maps on the Move
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
Featured Content
Sponsored by:
White Papers

Twelve ways to reduce costs with SQL Server 2008
Find out how to reduce costs and get more efficient

Download

Total Economic Impact of SQL Server 2008 Upgrade
Forrester reports on increasing productivity and management capabilities

Download 

Achieving Cost and Resource Savings with UC
How Office Communications Server R2 and Exchange Server can make your business smarter and more efficient

Download 

The Compelling Case for Conferencing
Read how you can improve workload support and find IT efficiencies

Download

How Windows Server 2008 R2 Helps Optimize IT and Save you Money
Read how you can improve workload support and find IT efficiencies

Download

Windows Server 2008 R2 Hyper-V Live Migration
See how Windows Server 2008 R2 and Hyper-V enable virtualization and Live Migration

Download
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.