Minimum Disclosure Counting for the Alternative Vote

  • Roland Wen
  • Richard Buckland
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5767)

Abstract

Although there is a substantial body of work on preventing bribery and coercion of voters in cryptographic election schemes for plurality electoral systems, there are few attempts to construct such schemes for preferential electoral systems. The problem is preferential systems are prone to bribery and coercion via subtle signature attacks during the counting. We introduce a minimum disclosure counting scheme for the alternative vote preferential system. Minimum disclosure provides protection from signature attacks by revealing only the winning candidate.

Keywords

Preferential voting alternative vote instant runoff voting online elections counting schemes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baudron, O., Fouque, P.A., Pointcheval, D., Stern, J., Poupard, G.: Practical multi-candidate election system. In: PODC, pp. 274–283 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benaloh, J.C., Tuinstra, D.: Receipt-free secret-ballot elections (extended abstract). In: STOC, pp. 544–553 (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Di Cosmo, R.: On Privacy and Anonymity in Electronic and Non Electronic Voting: the Ballot-As-Signature Attack (2007), http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~dicosmo/E-Vote/
  4. 4.
    Damgård, I., Jurik, M.: A Generalisation, a Simplification and Some Applications of Paillier’s Probabilistic Public-Key System. In: Kim, K. (ed.) PKC 2001. LNCS, vol. 1992, pp. 119–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Hoogh, S., Schoenmakers, B., Skoric, B., Villegas, J.: Verifiable Rotation of Homomorphic Encryptions. In: Jarecki, S., Tsudik, G. (eds.) Public Key Cryptography. LNCS, vol. 5443, pp. 393–410. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fouque, P.A., Poupard, G., Stern, J.: Sharing Decryption in the Context of Voting or Lotteries. In: Frankel, Y. (ed.) FC 2000. LNCS, vol. 1962, pp. 90–104. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goh, E.J., Golle, P.: Event Driven Private Counters. In: S. Patrick, A., Yung, M. (eds.) FC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3570, pp. 313–327. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Groth, J.: A Verifiable Secret Shuffle of Homomorphic Encryptions. In: Desmedt, Y.G. (ed.) PKC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2567, pp. 145–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Groth, J.: Non-interactive Zero-Knowledge Arguments for Voting. In: Ioannidis, J., Keromytis, A.D., Yung, M. (eds.) ACNS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3531, pp. 467–482. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Groth, J., Ishai, Y.: Sub-linear Zero-Knowledge Argument for Correctness of a Shuffle. In: Smart, N.P. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2008. LNCS, vol. 4965, pp. 379–396. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heather, J.: Implementing STV securely in Pret a Voter. In: CSF, pp. 157–169. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hevia, A., Kiwi, M.A.: Electronic jury voting protocols. Theor. Comput. Sci. 321, 73–94 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hirt, M., Sako, K.: Efficient Receipt-Free Voting Based on Homomorphic Encryption. In: Preneel, B. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2000. LNCS, vol. 1807, pp. 539–556. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jakobsson, M., Juels, A.: Mix and Match: Secure Function Evaluation via Ciphertexts. In: Okamoto, T. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2000. LNCS, vol. 1976, pp. 162–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Juels, A., Catalano, D., Jakobsson, M.: Coercion-resistant electronic elections. In: Atluri, V., di Vimercati, S.D.C., Dingledine, R. (eds.) WPES, pp. 61–70. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Keller, J., Kilian, J.: A Linked-List Approach to Cryptographically Secure Elections Using Instant Runoff Voting. In: Pieprzyk, J. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5350, pp. 198–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee, B., Boyd, C., Dawson, E., Kim, K., Yang, J., Yoo, S.: Providing Receipt-Freeness in Mixnet-Based Voting Protocols. In: Lim, J.-I., Lee, D.-H. (eds.) ICISC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2971, pp. 245–258. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nguyen, L., Safavi-Naini, R., Kurosawa, K.: Verifiable shuffles: a formal model and a Paillier-based three-round construction with provable security. Int. J. Inf. Sec. 5, 241–255 (2006)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Niemi, V., Renvall, A.: How to Prevent Buying of Votes in Computer Elections. In: Safavi-Naini, R., Pieprzyk, J.P. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 1994. LNCS, vol. 917, pp. 164–170. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Okamoto, T.: Receipt-Free Electronic Voting Schemes for Large Scale Elections. In: Christianson, B., Crispo, B., Lomas, T.M.A., Roe, M. (eds.) Security Protocols 1997. LNCS, vol. 1361, pp. 25–35. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paillier, P.: Public-Key Cryptosystems Based on Composite Degree Residuosity Classes. In: Stern, J. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1999. LNCS, vol. 1592, pp. 223–238. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Parkes, D.C., Rabin, M.O., Shieber, S.M., Thorpe, C.A.: Practical secrecy-preserving, verifiably correct and trustworthy auctions. In: Fox, M.S., Spencer, B. (eds.) ICEC. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, vol. 156, pp. 70–81. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reiter, M.K., Wang, X.: Fragile mixing. In: Atluri, V., Pfitzmann, B., McDaniel, P.D. (eds.) ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 227–235. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schoenmakers, B., Tuyls, P.: Efficient Binary Conversion for Paillier Encrypted Values. In: Vaudenay, S. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4004, pp. 522–537. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Teague, V., Ramchen, K., Naish, L.: Coercion-Resistant Tallying for STV Voting. In: Dill, D.L., Kohno, T. (eds.) EVT, USENIX Association (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal: van der Craats v Melbourne City Council [2000] VCAT 447 (2000), http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2000/447.html

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roland Wen
    • 1
  • Richard Buckland
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer Science and EngineeringThe University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations