On Some Incompatible Properties of Voting Schemes

  • Benoît Chevallier-Mames
  • Pierre-Alain Fouque
  • David Pointcheval
  • Julien Stern
  • Jacques Traoré
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6000)

Abstract

In this paper, we study the problem of simultaneously achieving several security properties, for voting schemes, without non-standard assumptions. More specifically, we focus on the universal verifiability of the computation of the tally, on the unconditional privacy/anonymity of the votes, and on the receipt-freeness properties, for the most classical election processes. Under usual assumptions and efficiency requirements, we show that a voting system that wants to publish the final list of the voters who actually voted, and to compute the number of times each candidate has been chosen, we cannot achieve:

  • universal verifiability of the tally (UV) and unconditional privacy of the votes (UP) simultaneously, unless all the registered voters actually vote;

  • universal verifiability of the tally (UV) and receipt- freeness (RF), unless private channels are available between the voters and/or the voting authorities.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abe, M., Ohkubo, M.: A length-invariant hybrid mix. In: Okamoto, T. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2000. LNCS, vol. 1976, pp. 178–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aditya, R., Lee, B., Boyd, C., Dawson, E.: An efficient mixnet-based voting scheme providing receipt-freeness. In: Katsikas, S.K., López, J., Pernul, G. (eds.) TrustBus 2004. LNCS, vol. 3184, pp. 152–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baudron, O., Fouque, P.-A., Pointcheval, D., Poupard, G., Stern, J.: Practical multi-candidate election system. In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 274–283. ACM Press, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benaloh, J., Tuinstra, D.: Receipt-free secret ballot elections. In: Okamoto, T. (ed.) Proceedings of STOC 1994. LNCS, vol. 1976, pp. 544–553. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cramer, R., Franklin, M., Schoenmackers, B.: Multi-authority secret-ballot elections with linear work. In: Maurer, U.M. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1996. LNCS, vol. 1070, pp. 72–83. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cramer, R., Gennaro, R., Schoenmakers, B.: A secure and optimally efficient multi-authority election scheme. In: Fumy, W. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1997. LNCS, vol. 1233, pp. 103–118. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Damgard, I., Jurik, M.: A Generalisation, a Simplification and Some Applications of Paillier’s Probabilistic Public-Key System. In: Kim, K.-c. (ed.) PKC 2001. LNCS, vol. 1992, pp. 119–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fujioka, A., Ohta, K., Okamoto, T.: A practical Secret Voting Scheme for Large Scale Elections. In: Zheng, Y., Seberry, J. (eds.) AUSCRYPT 1992. LNCS, vol. 718, pp. 248–259. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Furukawa, J.: Efficient, verifiable shuffle decryption and its requirement of unlinkability. In: Bao, F., Deng, R., Zhou, J. (eds.) PKC 2004. LNCS, vol. 2947, pp. 319–332. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Furukawa, J., Sako, K.: An efficient scheme for proving a shuffle. In: Kilian, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 2001. LNCS, vol. 2139, pp. 368–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Golle, P., Zhong, S., Boneh, D., Jakobsson, M., Juels, A.: Optimistic mixing for exit-polls. In: Zheng, Y. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2501, pp. 451–465. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  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., Rivest, R.: Making Mix-Nets Robust for Electronic Voting by Randomized Partial Checking. In: Proceedings of the 11th Usenix Security Symposium, USENIX 2002, pp. 339–353 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kiayias, A., Yung, M.: Self-tallying elections and perfect ballot secrecy. In: Naccache, D., Paillier, P. (eds.) PKC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2274, pp. 141–158. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim, K., Kim, J., Lee, B., Ahn, G.: Experimental Design of Worldwide Internet Voting System using PKI. In: SSGRR 2001, L’Aquila, Italy, August 6-10 (2001)Google 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.) Proceedings of ICICS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2971, pp. 245–258. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee, B., Kim, K.: Receipt-free electronic voting scheme with a tamper-resistant randomizer. In: Lee, P.J., Lim, C.H. (eds.) ICISC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2587, pp. 389–406. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Neff, A.: A verifiable secret shuffle and its application to e-voting. In: ACM CCCS 2001, pp. 116–125. ACM Press, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ohkubo, M., Miura, F., Abe, M., Fujioka, A., Okamoto, T.: An improvement on a practical secret voting scheme. In: Zheng, Y., Mambo, M. (eds.) ISW 1999. LNCS, vol. 1729, pp. 225–234. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Okamoto, T.: Receipt-free electronic voting schemes for large scale elections. In: Christianson, B., Lomas, M. (eds.) Security Protocols 1997. LNCS, vol. 1361, pp. 25–35. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peng, K., Boyd, C., Dawson, E.: Simple and efficient shuffling with provable correctness and ZK privacy. In: Shoup, V. (ed.) CRYPTO 2005. LNCS, vol. 3621, pp. 188–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benoît Chevallier-Mames
    • 1
  • Pierre-Alain Fouque
    • 2
  • David Pointcheval
    • 2
  • Julien Stern
    • 3
  • Jacques Traoré
    • 4
  1. 1.DCSSI 
  2. 2.ENS – CNRS – INRIA 
  3. 3.Cryptolog International 
  4. 4.Orange Labs – France Telecom R&D 

Personalised recommendations