Definition and Analysis of Election Processes

  • Mohammad S. Raunak
  • Bin Chen
  • Amr Elssamadisy
  • Lori A. Clarke
  • Leon J. Osterweil
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3966)

Abstract

This paper shows that process definition and analysis technologies can be used to reason about the vulnerability of election processes with respect to incorrect or fraudulent behaviors by election officials. The Little-JIL language is used to model example election processes, and various election worker fraudulent behaviors. The FLAVERS finite-state verification system is then used to determine whether different combinations of election worker behaviors cause the process to produce incorrect election results or whether protective actions can be used to thwart these threats.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bannet, J., Price, D.W., Rudys, A., Singer, J., Wallach, D.S.: Hack-a-vote: Security issues with electronic voting systems. Security & Privacy Magazine 2(1), 32–37 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cass, A.G., Lerner, B.S., McCall, E.K., Osterweil, L.J., Sutton Jr., S.M., Wise, A.: Little-JIL/Juliette: A process definition language and interpreter. In: Proc. of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering, Limerick, Ireland, pp. 754–757 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clarke, L.A., Chen, Y., Avrunin, G.S., Chen, B., Cobleigh, R., Frederick, K., Henneman, E.A., Osterweil, L.J.: Process Programming to Support Medical Safety: A Case Study on Blood Transfusion. In: Li, M., Boehm, B., Osterweil, L.J. (eds.) SPW 2005. LNCS, vol. 3840, pp. 347–359. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dugger, R.: Counting votes. Annals of Democracy. New Yorker 64(38) (November 7, 1988)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dwyer, M.B., Clarke, L.A., Cobleigh, J.M., Naumovich, G.: Flow Analysis for Verifying Properties of Concurrent Software Systems. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 359–430 (October 2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kohno, T., Stubblefield, A., Rubin, A., Wallach, D.: Analysis of an Electronic Voting. In: System IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2004, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robinson, S.: Did Your Vote Count? New Coded Ballots May Prove It Did. New York Times, March 2 (2004), http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/02/science/02VOTE.html?ex=1084334400&en=88f5c6e6696ccdcf&ei=5070
  8. 8.
    U.S. presidential election (2000): Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000
  9. 9.
    Verified Voting Foundation, http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org
  10. 10.
    Wise, A.: Little-JIL 1.0 language report. Technical Report No. UM-CS-1998-024, Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammad S. Raunak
    • 1
  • Bin Chen
    • 1
  • Amr Elssamadisy
    • 1
  • Lori A. Clarke
    • 1
  • Leon J. Osterweil
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations