Secure Internet Voting Protocol for Overseas Military Voters

  • Todd R. Andel
  • Alec Yasinsac
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7622)


Overseas military members are known to be disenfranchised at a far higher rate than traditional voters. This fact stems from problems associated with the traditional vote-by-mail absentee process, which does not mesh well to the military member’s frequent address changes, mail delivery in combat environments, and the simple delay in the two way mail system. Initiatives by the Federal Voting Assistance Program aim to improve voting capabilities for U.S. military members. Among these initiatives are the efforts to provide a complete system allowing the military voter the ability to receive and cast voted ballots directly over the Internet. This paper proposes a communication protocol to securely provide this voting option to our military voters while maintaining integrity in the U.S. election process.


Internet Voting Systems Electronic Voting Systems Absentee Voting Election Integrity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    U. S. Election Assistance Commission: Report to congress on EAC’s efforts to establish, guidelines for remote electronic absentee voting systems. Technical report (April 2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stewart, D.B.: Elections: DOD expands voting assistance to military absentee voters, but challenges remain. Testimony before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, GAO-06-1134T (September 2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    U. S. Election Assistance Commission: Best practices for facilitating voting by U.S. citizens covered by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act. Technical report (September 2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    U. S. Elections Assistance Commission: UOCAVA survey report findings 2006. Technical report (March 2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    GAO: Elections: Voting assistance to military and overseas citizens should be improved. Report to congressional requesters, GAO-01-1026 (September 2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walker, D.M.: Issues affecting military and overseas absentee voters. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, GAO-01-704T (May 2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    The Pew Center on the States: No time to vote: Challenges facing america’s overseas military voters. Technical report (January 2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Overseas Vote Foundation: 2008 OVF post election UOCAVA survey report and analysis: A detailed look at how overseas and military voters and election officials fared in the 2008 general election and what to do about it. Technical report (February 2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eversole, E.: Military voting in 2010: A step forward, but a long way to go. Technical report, Military Voter Protection Project (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harris, B.: Black Box Voting: Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century. Talion Publishing (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    FVAP: Department of defense: Expanding the use of electronic voting technology for UOCAVA citizens. Technical report, FVAP (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jefferson, D., Rubin, A.D., Simons, B., Wagner, D.: A security analysis of the secure electronic registration and voting experiment (SERVE). Technical report (January 2004),
  13. 13.
    Jefferson, D., Rubin, A.D., Simons, B., Wagner, D.: Analyzing internet voting security. Communications of the ACM 47, 59–64 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fujioka, A., Okamoto, T., Ohta, K.: A Practical Secret Voting Scheme for Large Scale Elections. In: Zheng, Y., Seberry, J. (eds.) AUSCRYPT 1992. LNCS, vol. 718, pp. 244–251. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Adida, B., Neff, C.A.: Efficient receipt-free ballot casting resistant to covert channels. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Electronic Voting Technology/Workshop on Trustworthy Elections, EVT/WOTE 2009, p. 11. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Magkos, E., Burmester, M., Chrissikopoulos, V.: Receipt-freeness in large-scale elections without untappable channels. In: Proceedings of the IFIP Conference on Towards The E-Society: E-Commerce, E-Business, E-Government, I3E 2001, Deventer, The Netherlands, The Netherlands, pp. 683–694. Kluwer, B.V (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    Menke, N., Reinhard, K.: Compliance of POLYAS with the common criteria protection profile - a 2010 outlook on certified remote electronic voting. In: Krimmer, R., Grimm, R. (eds.) Electronic Voting. LNI, vol. 167, pp. 109–118. GI (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Adida, B., De Marneffe, O., Pereira, O., Quisquater, J.J.: Electing a university president using open-audit voting: analysis of real-world use of Helios. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Electronic Voting Technology/Workshop on Trustworthy Elections, p. 10. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Skagestein, G., Haug, A.V., Nodtvedt, E., Rossebo, J.: How to create trust in electronic voting over an untrusted platform. In: Krimmer, R. (ed.) Electronic Voting 2006. LNI, vol. 86, pp. 107–116. GI (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schneier, B.: Crypto-gram newsletter: Internet voting vs. large-value e-commerce, Februrary 15 (2001),
  22. 22.
    Adida, B., Neff, C.A.: Ballot casting assurance. In: EVT 2006, Proceedings of the First Usenix/ACCURATE Electronic Voting Technology Workshop, August 1 (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Volkamer, M., Grimm, R.: Multiple casts in online voting: Analyzing chances. In: Krimmer, R. (ed.) Electronic Voting 2006. LNI, vol. 86, pp. 97–106. GI (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Todd R. Andel
    • 1
  • Alec Yasinsac
    • 1
  1. 1.School of ComputingUniversity of South AlabamaMobileUSA

Personalised recommendations