Towards Trustworthy Elections pp 191-199

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6000)

On Some Incompatible Properties of Voting Schemes

  • Benoît Chevallier-Mames
  • Pierre-Alain Fouque
  • David Pointcheval
  • Julien Stern
  • Jacques Traoré

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