Annals of Telecommunications

, Volume 71, Issue 7–8, pp 279–286 | Cite as

A review of E-voting: the past, present and future

  • J Paul GibsonEmail author
  • Robert Krimmer
  • Vanessa Teague
  • Julia Pomares


Electronic voting systems are those which depend on some electronic technology for their correct functionality. Many of them depend on such technology for the communication of election data. Depending on one or more communication channels in order to run elections poses many technical challenges with respect to verifiability, dependability, security, anonymity and trust. Changing the way in which people vote has many social and political implications. The role of election administrators and (independent) observers is fundamentally different when complex communications technology is involved in the process. Electronic voting has been deployed in many different types of election throughout the world for several decades. Despite lack of agreement on whether this has been a ‘success’, there has been—in the last few years—enormous investment in remote electronic voting (primarily as a means of exploiting the internet as the underlying communication technology).

This paper reviews the past, present and future of on-line voting. It reports on the role of technology transfer, from research to practice, and the range of divergent views concerning the adoption of on-line voting for critical elections.


Remote electronic voting Internet Review State-of-the-art 



Dr Gibson acknowledges the funding he received from the French ANR project IMPEX (13-INSE-0001).


  1. 1.
    Adida B (2008) Helios: Web-based open-audit voting. In: USENIX Security Symposium, vol 17, pp 335–348Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alvarez RM, Hall TE, Hyde SD (2009) Election fraud: detecting and deterring electoral manipulation. Brookings Institution PressGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aranha DF, Ribeiro H, Paraense ALO (2016) Crowdsourced integrity verification of election results. Annals of Telecommunications:1–11. doi: 10.1007/s12243-016-0511-1
  4. 4.
    Araújo R, Rajeb NB, Robbana R, Traoré J, Youssfi S (2010) Towards practical and secure coercion-resistant electronic elections. In: Cryptology and Network Security. Springer, pp 278– -297Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arthur JK, Adu-Manu KS (2014) A trustworthy architectural framework for the administration of e-voting: the case of Ghana. Int J Comput Sci Issues (IJCSI) 11(3):97Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bell S, Benaloh J, Byrne MD, DeBeauvoir D, Eakin B, Kortum P, McBurnett N, Pereira O, Stark PB, Wallach DS et al (2013) Star-vote: a secure, transparent, auditable, and reliable voting system. In: 2013 Electronic Voting Technology Workshop/Workshop on Trustworthy Elections (EVT/WOTE 13)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Braun N (2005) Stimmgeheimnis: Eine rechtsvergleichende und rechtshistorische Untersuchung unter Einbezug des geltenden Rechts Stampfli VerlagGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Braun N, Brändli D Swiss e-voting pilot projects: Evaluation, situation analysis and how to proceed. In: Krimmer [34], pp 27–36Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Budurushi J, Renaud K, Volkamer M, Woide M (2016) An investigation into the usability of electronic voting systems for complex elections. Annals of Telecommunications pp 1–14. doi: 10.1007/s12243-016-0510-2
  10. 10.
    Carback R, Chaum D, Clark J, Conway J, Essex A, Herrnson PS, Mayberry T, Popoveniuc S, Rivest RL, Shen E, et al. Scantegrity ii municipal election at takoma park: The first e2e binding governmental election with ballot privacy (2010).
  11. 11.
    Carter L, Bélanger F (2005) The utilization of e-government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors*. Inf Syst J 15(1):5–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clarkson ME, Chong S, Myers AC (2007) Civitas: a secure remote voting system. In: Chaum D., Kutylowski M., Rivest R. L., Ryan P. Y. A. (eds) Frontiers of Electronic Voting, Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, vol 07311. Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum fuer Informatik (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cranor LF, Cytron RK (1997) Sensus: a security-conscious electronic polling system for the internet. In: Proceedings of the Thirtieth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1997, vol 3. IEEE, pp 561–570Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Culnane C, Ryan PY, Schneider S, Teague V (2015) vvote: a verifiable voting system. ACM Trans Inf Syst Secur (TISSEC) 18(1):3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Davies DW, Bartlett KA, Scantlebury RA, Wilkinson PT (1967) A digital communication network for computers giving rapid response at remote terminals. In: Proceedings of the First ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles, SOSP ’67. doi: 10.1145/800001.811669. ACM, NY, USA, pp 2.1–2.17
  16. 16.
    Fernandes NC, Moreira MD, Moraes IGM, Ferraz LHG, Couto RS, Carvalho HE, Campista MEM, Costa LHM, Duarte OCM (2011) Virtual networks: isolation, performance, and trends. Ann Telecommun-Annal Télécommun 66(5-6):339–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fuller RB (1967) No more secondhand god: And other writings. Southern Illinois University PressGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gjøsteen K, Lund AS (2016) An experiment on the security of the norwegian electronic voting protocol. Annals of Telecommunications:1–9. doi: 10.1007/s12243-016-0509-8
  19. 19.
    Gonggrijp R, Hengeveld WJ (2007) Studying the Nedap/Groenendaal ES3b voting computer: A computer security perspective. In: EVT’07: Proceedings Of the USENIX/Accurate Electronic Voting Technology Workshop 2007 on Electronic Voting Technology Workshop. USENIX Association, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goodman NJ (2014) Internet voting in a local election in Canada. In: The Internet and Democracy in Global Perspective. Springer, pp 7–24Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gritzalis D (2002) Principles and requirements for a secure e-voting system. Comput Secur 21(6):539–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gronke P, Galanes-Rosenbaum E, Miller PA, Toffey D (2008) Convenience voting. Annu Rev Polit Sci 11:437–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Haber S, Benaloh J, Halevi S (2010) The helios e-voting demo for the international association for cryptologic research (IACR). IACRGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Halderman JA, Teague V (2015) The new south wales ivote systevem: Security failures and verification flaws in a live online election. In: E-voting and Identity. Springer, pp 35–53Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Heiberg S, Parsovs A, Willemson J (2015) Log analysis of Estonian internet voting 2013–2014. Springer, pp 19–34Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hiltz SR, Turoff M (1993) The network nation: Human communication via computer. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Horst M, Kuttschreuter M, Gutteling JM (2007) Perceived usefulness, personal experiences, risk perception and trust as determinants of adoption of e-government services in The Netherlands. Comput Hum Behav 23(4):1838–1852. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2005.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Horster P, Michels M (1995) Der vertrauensaspekt in elektronischen wahlen. In: Trust Center. Springer, pp 180–189Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jacobs B, Pieters W (2009) Electronic voting in the Netherlands: from early adoption to early abolishment. In: Foundations of Security Analysis and Design V. Springer, pp 121–144Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Juels A, Catalano D, Jakobsson M (2005) Coercion-resistant electronic elections. In: Atluri V., Di Vimercati S.D.C., Dingledine R. (eds) WPES. doi: 10.1145/1102199.1102213. ACM, pp 61–70
  31. 31.
    Kiniry JR, Morkan AE, Cochran D, Fairmichael F, Chalin P, Oostdijk M, Hubbers E (2006) The koa remote voting system: a summary of work to date. In: montanari U., Sannella D., Bruni R. (eds) TGC, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4661. Springer, pp 244–262Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kiniry JR, Morkan AE, Cochran D, Oostdijk M, Hubbers E (2006) Formal techniques in a remote voting system. SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes 31(6):1–2. doi: 10.1145/1218776.1218793 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kohno T, Stubblefield A, Rubin AD, Wallach DS (2004) Analysis of an electronic voting system. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (s&p04). IEEE, pp 27–40Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Krimmer R. (ed) (2006) Electronic Voting 2006: 2nd International Workshop, Co-organized by Council of Europe, ESF TED, IFIP WG 8.6 and E-Voting.CC, August, 2nd - 4th, 2006 in Castle Hofen, Bregenz, Austria, LNI, vol. 86. GIGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Krimmer R, Volkamer M (2005) Bits or paper? comparing remote electronic voting to postal voting. In: Andersen K. V., Grönlund Å.A., Traunmüller R., Wimmer M. (eds) EGOV (Workshops and posters), Schriftenreihe Informatik, vol 13. Universitätsverlag Rudolf Trauner, Linz, Austria, pp 225–232Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lindeman M, Stark PB (2012) A gentle introduction to risk-limiting audits. IEEE Security & Privacy (5), pp 42–49Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Locher P, Haenni R (2016) Receipt-free remote electronic elections with everlasting privacy. Annals of Telecommunications, pp 1–14. doi: 10.1007/s12243-016-0519-6
  38. 38.
    Maaten E (2004) Towards remote e-voting: Estonian case. In: prosser A., Krimmer R. (eds) Electronic Voting in Europe, vol 47. LNI, GI, pp 83–100Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Madise Ü., Martens T E-voting in estonia 2005. the first practice of country-wide binding internet voting in the world. In: Krimmer [34], pp 15–26Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    McGaley M, Gibson JP (2003) E-Voting: A Safety Critical System. Technical Report NUIM-CSTR- 2003-02, NUI Maynooth, Computer Science DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mercuri R (2002) A better ballot box?. IEEE Spectr. 39(10):46–50. doi: 10.1109/MSPEC.2002.1038569 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mercurio B (2003) Democracy in decline: can internet voting save the electoral process. J Marshall J Comput Info L 22:409Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mohen J, Glidden J (2001) The case for internet voting. Commun ACM 44:72–85. doi: 10.1145/357489.357511 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Monnoyer-Smith L How e-voting technology challenges traditional concepts of citizenship: an analysis of french voting rituals. In: Krimmer [34], pp 61–68Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mote Jr C (2000) Report of the national workshop on internet voting: issues and research agenda. In: Proceedings of the 2000 Annual National Conference on Digital Government Research. Digital Government Society of North America, pp 1–59Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Neumann S, Volkamer M, Jurlind B, Prandrini M (2016) Secivo: a quantitative security assessment model for internet voting schemes. Annals Telecommunication pp 1–14Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pammett JH, Goodman N (2013) Consultation and evaluation practices in the implementation of internet voting in Canada and europe. Elections Canada, Research Report, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pinault T, Courtade P (2012) E-voting at expatriates’ mps elections in France. In: Electronic Voting, pp 189–195Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Serdult U, Germann M, Mendez F, Portenier A, Wellig C (2015) Fifteen years of internet voting in Switzerland [history, governance and use]. In: 2015 Second International Conference on Edemocracy & Egovernment (ICEDEG). IEEE, pp 126–132Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Springall D, Finkenauer T, Durumeric Z, Kitcat J, Hursti H, MacAlpine M, Halderman JA (2014) Security analysis of the Estonian internet voting system. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, pp 703–715Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Staveley ES (1972) Greek and rOman Voting and Elections. [London] Thames & HudsonGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Villafiorita A, Weldemariam K, Tiella R (2009) Development, formal verification, and evaluation of an e-voting system with vvpat. Trans Info For Sec 4(4):651–661. doi: 10.1109/TIFS.2009.2034903 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zissis D, Lekkas D (2011) Securing e-government and e-voting with an open cloud computing architecture. Gov Inf Q 28(2):239–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institut Mines-Télécom and Springer-Verlag France 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • J Paul Gibson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Robert Krimmer
    • 2
  • Vanessa Teague
    • 3
  • Julia Pomares
    • 4
  1. 1.SAMOVAR, Télécom Sud Paris, CNRSUniversité Paris SaclayParisFrance
  2. 2.Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and GovernanceTallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia
  3. 3.University of MelbourneVictoriaAustralia
  4. 4.CIPPECBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations