Abstract
This paper reviews several aspects where electronic/Internet and paper voting can be compared (vote secrecy, verifiability, ballot box integrity, transparency and trust base). We conclude that for many vulnerabilities of Internet voting systems, there exist related weakness in paper systems as well. The main reason why paper-based elections are perceived as more secure is historical experience. We argue that recent criticism about Internet voting has unfairly concentrated on the associated risks and neglected the benefits. Remote electronic voting lowers the cost of election participation and provides the most secure means for absentee voting. The latter is something that is more and more needed in the contemporary, increasingly mobile world. Hence, we need to give Internet voting a chance, even if it means risking with unknown threats.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Examples of such communities include http://verifiedvoting.org/, http://www.handcountedpaperballots.org/, http://thevotingnews.com/, http://www.votersunite.org/, etc.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
References
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. General election 5 May 2005. OSCE/ODIHR Assessment Mission Report, May 2005. http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/uk/16204
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. General election 6 May 2010. OSCE/ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Report, May 2010. http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/69072
Part E - Verifying and counting the votes. UK Parliamentary general election in Great Britain on 7 May 2015: guidance for (Acting) Returning Officers, May 2015. http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/_data/assets/pdf_file/0006/175389/Part-E-Verifying-and-counting-the-votes.pdf
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. General election 7 May 2015. OSCE/ODIHR Election Expert Team Final Report, May 2015. http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/uk/174081
Calandrino, J.A., Clarkson, W., Felten, E.W.: Some consequences of paper fingerprinting for elections. In: EVT/WOTE (2009)
Culnane, C., Schneider, S.: A peered bulletin board for robust use in verifiable voting systems. In: 2014 IEEE 27th Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF), pp. 169–183. IEEE (2014)
Fearon, P.: The growth of aviation in Britain. J. Contemp. History 20(1), 21–40 (1985)
Gerck, E., Neff, C.A., Rivest, R.L., Rubin, A.D., Yung, M.: The business of electronic voting. In: Syverson, P. (ed.) FC 2001. LNCS, vol. 2339, pp. 243–268. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi:10.1007/3-540-46088-8_21
Goggin, S.N., Byrne, M.D., Gilbert, J.E.: Post-election auditing: effects of procedure and ballot type on manual counting accuracy, efficiency, and auditor satisfaction and confidence. Election Law J. 11(1), 36–51 (2012)
Heiberg, S., Laud, P., Willemson, J.: The application of I-voting for estonian parliamentary elections of 2011. In: Kiayias, A., Lipmaa, H. (eds.) Vote-ID 2011. LNCS, vol. 7187, pp. 208–223. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-32747-6_13
Heiberg, S., Willemson, J.: Verifiable internet voting in Estonia. In: 2014 6th International Conference on Electronic Voting: Verifying the Vote (EVOTE), pp. 1–8. IEEE (2014)
Horwitz, S.: More than 30 states offer online voting, but experts warn it isn’t secure. The Washington Post, May 016
Jefferson, D.: If i can shop and bank online, why can’t i vote online? https://www.verifiedvoting.org/resources/internet-voting/vote-online/
Krimmer, R., Volkamer, M.: Bits or paper? Comparing remote electronic voting to postal voting. In: Electronic Government - Workshop and Poster Proceedings of the Fourth International EGOV Conference, pp. 225–232 (2005)
Noizat, P.: Blockchain electronic vote. In: Lee Kuo Chuen, D. (ed.) Handbook of Digital Currency. Elsevier, London (2015). Chap. 22
Rivest, R.L.: Electronic voting. In: Financial Cryptography, vol. 1, pp. 243–268 (2001)
Solvak, M., Vassil, K.: E-voting in Estonia: Technological Diffusion and Other Developments Over Ten Years (2005–2015). University of Tartu, Johan Skytte Institute of Political Studies (2016)
Springall, D., Finkenauer, T., Durumeric, Z., Kitcat, J., Hursti, H., MacAlpine, M., Halderman, J.A.: Security analysis of the Estonian internet voting system. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 703–715. ACM (2014)
Stark, P.B.: Conservative statistical post-election audits. Ann. Appl. Stat. 2, 550–581 (2008)
Stark, P.B., Teague, V.: Verifiable european elections: risk-limiting audits for d’hondt and its relatives. USENIX J. Election Technol. Syst. (JETS) 1, 18–39 (2014)
Yasinsac, A., Bishop, M.: The dynamics of counting and recounting votes. IEEE Secur. Priv. 6(3), 22–29 (2008)
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to Melanie Volkamer, Sven Heiberg and Arnis Paršovs for useful and inspiring discussions.
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Regional Development Fund through Estonian Centre of Excellence in ICT Research (EXCITE) and the Estonian Research Council under Institutional Research Grant IUT27-1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Willemson, J. (2017). Bits or Paper: Which Should Get to Carry Your Vote?. In: Krimmer, R., Volkamer, M., Braun Binder, N., Kersting, N., Pereira, O., Schürmann, C. (eds) Electronic Voting. E-Vote-ID 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10615. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68687-5_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68687-5_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68686-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68687-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)