Trust, secrecy and accuracy in voting systems: the case for transparency
If voting systems are to be trusted, they not only need to preserve both secrecy (if requested) and accuracy, but the mechanisms that preserve these features should be transparent, in the sense of being both cognitively understandable and accessible. Electronic voting systems, much as they promise accuracy in counting, and on top of being criticized for their insufficient protection of secrecy, violate the transparency requirement.
KeywordsSocial epistemology Trust Voting Voting systems Electronic voting
- Delaune S, Kremer S, Ryan M (2006) Coercion-resistance and receipt-freeness in electronic voting. Proceedings of the 19th IEEE workshop on computer security foundations. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 28-42Google Scholar
- Jacobson AJ, Rosenfeld M (2002) The longest night: Polemics and perspectives on election 2000. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
- Kohno T, Stubblefield A Rubin AD, Wallach DS (2004) Analysis of an electronic voting system. IEEE symposium on security and privacy 2004. IEEE Computer Society Press, MayGoogle Scholar
- Mercuri R (2002) Explanation of voter-verified ballot systems, In: The Risks Digest, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Forum on risks to the public in computers and related systems, vol 22, Issue 17Google Scholar
- Origgi G (2008) Qu’est-ce que la confiance? Vrin, ParisGoogle Scholar