Enabling Vote Delegation for Boardroom Voting

  • Oksana KulykEmail author
  • Stephan Neumann
  • Karola Marky
  • Melanie Volkamer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10323)


A lot of decisions are made during boardroom meetings. After a discussion, the head of the board often asks for a quick poll. But what if you cannot join the meeting? So called boardroom voting schemes have been proposed to conduct the poll over the Internet and thereby enabling also those who are not present but available online to participant in the poll. But what if you are not available at this point in time? For important decisions you may want to delegate your vote to a present and trusted board member. In this paper, we show how to extend an existing boardroom voting scheme towards delegation functionality. The new scheme is evaluated against security requirements determined for boardroom voting and security requirements tailored to the delegation process.



This paper has been partially developed within the project (HA project no. 435/14-25) funded in the framework of Hessen ModellProjekte, financed with funds of LOEWE –Landes-Offensive zur Entwicklung Wissenschaftlich-ökonomischer Exzellenz, Förderlinie 3: KMU-Verbundvorhaben (State Offensive for the Development of Scientific and Economic Excellence). It has also been partially developed within the project ‘VALID’ - Verifiable Liquid Democracy - which is funded by the Polyas GmbH. This work has also been supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) as well as by the Hessen State Ministry for Higher Education, Research and the Arts within CRISP.


  1. 1.
    Adida, B.: Helios: web-based open-audit voting. In: Proceedings of 17th Conference on Security Symposium, SS 2008, pp. 335–348. USENIX, July 2008Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arnaud, M., Cortier, V., Wiedling, C.: Analysis of an electronic boardroom voting system. In: Heather, J., Schneider, S., Teague, V. (eds.) Vote-ID 2013. LNCS, vol. 7985, pp. 109–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bayer, S., Groth, J.: Efficient zero-knowledge argument for correctness of a shuffle. In: Pointcheval, D., Johansson, T. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7237, pp. 263–280. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bernhard, D., Pereira, O., Warinschi, B.: How not to prove yourself: pitfalls of the Fiat-Shamir heuristic and applications to Helios. In: Wang, X., Sako, K. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7658, pp. 626–643. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Budurushi, J., Neumann, S., Olembo, M.M., Volkamer, M.: Pretty understandable democracy-a secure and understandable internet voting scheme. In: Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, ARES 2013, pp. 198–207. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Camenisch, J., Stadler, M.: Efficient group signature schemes for large groups. In: Kaliski, B.S. (ed.) CRYPTO 1997. LNCS, vol. 1294, pp. 410–424. Springer, Heidelberg (1997). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Camenisch, J., Stadler, M.: Proof systems for general statements about discrete logarithms. Technical report, Citeseer (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cramer, R., Gennaro, R., Schoenmakers, B.: A secure and optimally efficient multi-authority election scheme. Eur. Trans. Telecommun. 8(5), 481–490 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    DeMillo, R.A., Lynch, N.A., Merritt, M.J.: Cryptographic protocols. In: Proceedings of 14th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 1982, pp. 383–400. ACM (1982)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Diffie, W., Hellman, M.: New directions in cryptography. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theor. 22(6), 644–654 (1976)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ElGamal, T.: A public key cryptosystem and a signature scheme based on discrete logarithms. In: Blakley, G.R., Chaum, D. (eds.) CRYPTO 1984. LNCS, vol. 196, pp. 10–18. Springer, Heidelberg (1985). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giustolisi, R., Iovino, V., Rønne, P.B.: On the possibility of non-interactive e-voting in the public-key setting. In: Clark, J., Meiklejohn, S., Ryan, P.Y.A., Wallach, D., Brenner, M., Rohloff, K. (eds.) FC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9604, pp. 193–208. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Groth, J.: Efficient maximal privacy in boardroom voting and anonymous broadcast. In: Juels, A. (ed.) FC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3110, pp. 90–104. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hao, F., Ryan, P.Y., Zielinski, P.: Anonymous voting by two-round public discussion. IET Inf. Secur. 4(2), 62–67 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    Khader, D., Smyth, B., Ryan, P.Y., Hao, F.: A fair and robust voting system by broadcast. In: Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Electronic Voting, EVOTE 2012, vol. 205, pp. 285–299. Gesellschaft für Informatik (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    Kulyk, O., Marky, K., Neumann, S., Volkamer, M.: Introducing proxy voting to Helios. In: Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, ARES 2016, pp. 98–106. IEEE, September 2016Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kulyk, O., Neumann, S., Marky, K., Budurushi, J., Volkamer, M.: Coercion-resistant proxy voting. In: Hoepman, J.-H., Katzenbeisser, S. (eds.) SEC 2016. IAICT, vol. 471, pp. 3–16. Springer, Cham (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kulyk, O., Neumann, S., Volkamer, M., Feier, C., Koster, T.: Electronic voting with fully distributed trust and maximized flexibility regarding ballot design. In: Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Electronic Voting, Verifying the Vote, EVOTE 2014, pp. 1–10. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lamport, L., Shostak, R., Pease, M.: The Byzantine generals problem. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 4(3), 382–401 (1982). TOPLAS 1982CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nguyen, L.H., Roscoe, A.W.: Efficient group authentication protocol based on human interaction. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Foundation of Computer Security and Automated Reasoning Protocol Security Analysis, FCS-ARSPA 2006, pp. 9–33, August 2006Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pedersen, T.P.: Distributed provers and verifiable secret sharing based on the discrete logarithm problem. DAIMI Rep. Ser. 21(388) (1992)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pedersen, T.P.: Non-interactive and information-theoretic secure verifiable secret sharing. In: Feigenbaum, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 1991. LNCS, vol. 576, pp. 129–140. Springer, Heidelberg (1992). Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ritter, J.: Decentralized e-voting on android devices using homomorphic tallying. Master’s thesis, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Biel, Switzerland (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shamir, A.: How to share a secret. Commun. ACM 22(11), 612–613 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Szepieniec, A., Preneel, B.: New techniques for electronic voting. JETS 2015: USENIX J. Elect. Technol. Syst. pp. 46–69 (2015)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tchorbadjiiski, A.: Liquid democracy diploma thesis. RWTH AACHEN University, Germany (2012)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Terelius, B., Wikström, D.: Proofs of restricted shuffles. In: Bernstein, D.J., Lange, T. (eds.) AFRICACRYPT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6055, pp. 100–113. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zwattendorfer, B., Hillebold, C., Teufl, P.: Secure and privacy-preserving proxy voting system. In: Proceedings of IEEE 10th International Conference on e-Business Engineering, ICEBE 2013, pp. 472–477. IEEE, September 2013Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Financial Cryptography Association 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oksana Kulyk
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stephan Neumann
    • 1
  • Karola Marky
    • 1
  • Melanie Volkamer
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Technische Universität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.Karlstad UniversityKarlstadSweden

Personalised recommendations