skip to main content

Attention:

The NSF Public Access Repository (NSF-PAR) system and access will be unavailable from 11:00 PM ET on Thursday, May 23 until 2:00 AM ET on Friday, May 24 due to maintenance. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Title: Phrase-Verified Voting: Verifiable low-tech remote boardroom voting
We present Phrase-Verified Voting, a voter-verifiable remote voting system easily assembled from commercial off-the-shelf software for small private elections. The system is transparent and enables each voter to verify that the tally includes their ballot selection without requiring any understanding of cryptography. This system is an example of making voter verification usable. The paper describes the system and an experience with it in fall 2020, to vote remotely in promotion committees in a university. Each voter fills out a form in the cloud with their selection $V$ for each race and a two-word passphrase $P$. The system generates a verification prompt of the $(V,P)$ pairs and a tally of the votes, organized to help visualize how the votes add up. After the polls close, each voter verifies that this table lists their $(V,P)$ pair and that the tally is computed correctly. The system is especially appropriate for any small group making sensitive decisions. Because the system would not prevent a coercer from demanding that their victim use a specified passphrase, it is not designed for applications where such malfeasance would be likely or go undetected. Results from 43 voters show that the system performed effectively for its intended purpose, and introduced users to the concept of voter-verified elections. Compared to the commonly-used alternatives of paper ballots or voting by email, voters found the system easier to use, and that it provided greater privacy and outcome integrity.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1753681
NSF-PAR ID:
10290857
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Cryptologia
ISSN:
1558-1586
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. null (Ed.)
    A boardroom election is an election with a small number of voters carried out with public communications. We present BVOT, a self-tallying boardroom voting protocol with ballot secrecy, fairness (no tally information is available before the polls close), and dispute-freeness (voters can observe that all voters correctly followed the protocol). BVOT works by using a multiparty threshold homomorphic encryption system in which each candidate is associated with a set of masked primes. Each voter engages in an oblivious transfer with an untrusted distributor: the voter selects the index of a prime associated with a candidate and receives the selected prime in masked form. The voter then casts their vote by encrypting their masked prime and broadcasting it to everyone. The distributor does not learn the voter's choice, and no one learns the mapping between primes and candidates until the audit phase. By hiding the mapping between primes and candidates, BVOT provides voters with insufficient information to carry out effective cheating. The threshold feature prevents anyone from computing any partial tally---until everyone has voted. Multiplying all votes, their decryption shares, and the unmasking factor yields a product of the primes each raised to the number of votes received. In contrast to some existing boardroom voting protocols, BVOT does not rely on any zero-knowledge proof; instead, it uses oblivious transfer to assure ballot secrecy and correct vote casting. Also, BVOT can handle multiple candidates in one election. BVOT prevents cheating by hiding crucial information: an attempt to increase the tally of one candidate might increase the tally of another candidate. After all votes are cast, any party can tally the votes. 
    more » « less
  2. We solve a long-standing challenge to the integrity of votes cast without the supervision of a voting booth: ``{\it improper influence},'' which typically refers to any combination of vote buying and voter coercion. Our approach allows each voter, or their trusted agents (which we call ``{\it hedgehogs}''), to {\it ``nullify''} (effectively cancel) their vote in a way that is unstoppable, irrevocable, and forever unattributable to the voter. In particular, our approach enhances security of online, remote, public-sector elections, for which there is a growing need and the threat of improper influence is most acute. We introduce the new approach, give detailed cryptographic protocols, show how it can be applied to several voting settings, and describe our implementation. The protocols compose a full voting system, which we call {\it {\votexx}}, including registration, voting, nullification, and tallying---using an anonymous communication system for registration, vote casting, and other communication in the system. We demonstrate how the technique can be applied to known systems, including where ballots can be mailed to voters and voters use codes on the ballot to cast their votes online. In comparison with previous proposals, our system makes fewer assumptions and protects against a strong adversary who learns all of the voter's keys. In {\votexx}, each voter has two public-private key pairs. Without revealing their private keys, each voter registers their public keys with the election authority. Each voter may share their keys with one or more hedgehogs. During nullification, the voter, or one or more of their hedgehogs, can interact through the anonymous communication system to nullify a vote by proving knowledge of one of the voter's private keys via a zero-knowledge proof without revealing the private key. We describe a fully decentralizable implementation of {\votexx}, including its public bulletin board, which could be implemented on a blockchain. 
    more » « less
  3. Instant runoff voting (IRV) is an increasingly-popular alternative to traditional plurality voting in which voters submit rankings over the candidates rather than single votes. In practice, elections using IRV often restrict the ballot length, the number of candidates a voter is allowed to rank on their ballot. We theoretically and empirically analyze how ballot length can influence the outcome of an election, given fixed voter preferences. We show that there exist preference profiles over k candidates such that up to k-1 different candidates win at different ballot lengths. We derive exact lower bounds on the number of voters required for such profiles and provide a construction matching the lower bound for unrestricted voter preferences. Additionally, we characterize which sequences of winners are possible over ballot lengths and provide explicit profile constructions achieving any feasible winner sequence. We also examine how classic preference restrictions influence our results—for instance, single-peakedness makes k-1 different winners impossible but still allows at least Ω(√k). Finally, we analyze a collection of 168 real-world elections, where we truncate rankings to simulate shorter ballots. We find that shorter ballots could have changed the outcome in one quarter of these elections. Our results highlight ballot length as a consequential degree of freedom in the design of IRV elections. 
    more » « less
  4. We propose and study a new class of polynomial voting rules for a general decentralized decision/consensus system, and more specifically for the proof-of-stake protocol. The main idea, inspired by the Penrose square-root law and the more recent quadratic voting rule, is to differentiate a voter’s voting power and the voter’s share (fraction of the total in the system). We show that, whereas voter shares form a martingale process that converges to a Dirichlet distribution, their voting powers follow a supermartingale process that decays to zero over time. This prevents any voter from controlling the voting process and, thus, enhances security. For both limiting results, we also provide explicit rates of convergence. When the initial total volume of votes (or stakes) is large, we show a phase transition in share stability (or the lack thereof), corresponding to the voter’s initial share relative to the total. We also study the scenario in which trading (of votes/stakes) among the voters is allowed and quantify the level of risk sensitivity (or risk aversion) in three categories, corresponding to the voter’s utility being a supermartingale, a submartingale, and a martingale. For each category, we identify the voter’s best strategy in terms of participation and trading.

    Funding: W. Tang gratefully acknowledges financial support through the National Science Foundation [Grants DMS-2113779 and DMS-2206038] and through a start-up grant at Columbia University. D. D. Yao’s work is part of a Columbia–City University/Hong Kong collaborative project that is supported by InnoHK Initiative, the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the Laboratory for AI-Powered Financial Technologies.

     
    more » « less
  5. null (Ed.)
    Ballot marking devices (BMDs) allow voters to select candidates on a computer kiosk, which prints a paper ballot that the voter can review before inserting it into a scanner to be tabulated. Unlike paperless voting machines, BMDs provide voters an opportunity to verify an auditable physical record of their choices, and a growing number of U.S. jurisdictions are adopting them for all voters. However, the security of BMDs depends on how reliably voters notice and correct any adversarially induced errors on their printed ballots. In order to measure voters' error detection abilities, we conducted a large study (N = 241) in a realistic polling place setting using real voting machines that we modified to introduce an error into each printout. Without intervention, only 40% of participants reviewed their printed ballots at all, and only 6.6% told a poll worker something was wrong. We also find that carefully designed interventions can improve verification performance. Verbally instructing voters to review the printouts and providing a written slate of candidates for whom to vote both significantly increased review and reporting rates-although the improvements may not be large enough to provide strong security in close elections, especially when BMDs are used by all voters. Based on these findings, we make several evidence-based recommendations to help better defend BMD-based elections. 
    more » « less