Advertisement

e-Democracy pp 223-239 | Cite as

A Generic System for Remote e-Voting Management

  • Carlos Grima
  • David Ríos Insua
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation book series (AGDN, volume 5)

Abstract

In this chapter, we describe the architecture and behaviour that a realistic, generic computer system should have to support remote electronic voting using Internet, with requirements as general as possible. To do this, we follow the standard ANSI/IEEE 830-1998. We design the data model and enumerate the requirements with UML use cases, describing some of them with a structured language and communication diagrams. In order to achieve maximum flexibility, security and user interface issues are dealt with in separate systems, although we also describe them in general terms.

Keywords

Class Diagram Vote System Security Manager Vote Method Electronic Vote 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Research supported by grants from CAM and MICINN.

References

  1. Afront Society 2004. Sourcecode analysis of the DigiVote system used in Belgium elections on 18th May 2003. Retrieved online on 29th January 2010 from http://www.poureva.be/IMG/pdf/afront.pdf
  2. American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and IEEE Computer Society. 1998. ANSI/IEEE 830-1998 Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications. Retrieved online on 10th January 2008 from http://www.ansi.org
  3. Bannister, F. and R. Connolly. 2007. A risk assessment framework for electronic voting. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 7, 190–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Booch, G., J. Rumbaugh and I. Jacobson. 2006. The Unified Modeling Language User Guide, 2nd edn. Boston, MA, Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  5. Brenner, W., H. Witting and R. Zarnekow. 1998. Intelligent Software Agents: Foundations and Applications. New York, NY, Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Card, D. and E. Moretti 2005. Does voting technology affect election outcomes? Touch-screen voting and the 2004 Presidential election. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Papers, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  7. Castro, M. and B. Liskov. 1999. Practical byzantine fault tolerance. In Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, New Orleans, LA, February 1999. pp. 173–186.Google Scholar
  8. Council of Europe. 2009. E-voting Project. Good Governance in the Information Society. Includes recommendation “Rec(2004)11” and reviews of the Committee of Ministers to member states on legal, operational and technical standards for e-voting. Retrieved online on 12th September 2009 from http://www.coe.int/t/dgap/democracy/Activities/GGIS/E-voting/Default_en.asp
  9. Durán, A., B. Bernández Jiménez, A. Ruiz Cortés and M. Toro Bonilla. 1999. A requirements elicitation approach based in templates and patterns. Proceedings of Workshop of Requirement Engineering, 17–29, Buenos Aires, Argentina.Google Scholar
  10. Gamma, E. 2003. Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  11. Gonggrijp, R. and W. J. Hengeveld. 2006. Nedap/Groenendaal ES3B voting computer. A security analysis. Retrieved online on 29th January 2010 from http://wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet.nl/images/9/91/Es3b-en.pdf
  12. Grima-Izquierdo, C. and D. Ríos Insua. 2008. Designing a general architecture to support e-Government. Proceedings of the DIAC-2008/OD2008 (“Tools for participation, collaboration, deliberation and decision support. Directions and Implications of Advanced Computing; Conference on Online Deliberation”). Berkeley (USA), 26–29th June 2008. ISBN 0-96678-185-6. Online version at http://publicsphereproject.org/events/diac08/proceedings/10.e-Government_Architecture.Grima-Izquierdo_and_Rios_Insua.pdf
  13. Grima-Izquierdo, C. and D. Ríos Insua. 2010. Finding problems and solutions of e-Government and e-Democracy. Technical report. Department of Statistics and OR, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid.Google Scholar
  14. Kohno, T., A. Stubblefield, A. D. Rubin and D. S. Wallach. 2004. Analysis of an electronic voting system. Proceedings of 2004 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, IEEE, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  15. Krimmer, R. and Grimm, R., Eds. 2008. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Electronic Voting 2008. GI-Edition.Google Scholar
  16. Palast, G. 2003. The best democracy money can buy. Plume, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  17. Prado, R. and B. Sansó. 2004. The 2004 Venezuelan Presidential Recall: discrepancies between Exit Polls and official results. Tech. Report, U. Cal. Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  18. Presnell, B. and A. Agresti. 2002. Misvotes, undervotes and overvotes: the 2000 presidential elections in Florida. Statistical Science, 17(4), 436–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rezende, P. 2004. Electronic voting systems. Is Brazil ahead of its time? DIMACS voting workshop, Rutgers University Piscataway, NJ, May 26–27, 2004. Retrieved online on 29th January 2010 from http://www.cic.unb.br/~pedro/trabs/election.htm
  20. Thalheim, B. 2000. Entity-Relationship Modeling. New York, NY, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Volkamer, M. and M. McGaley. 2007. Requirements and evaluation procedures for e-Voting. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES) Vienna, IEEE. pp. 895–902.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Statistics and Operational ResearchRey Juan Carlos UniversityMadridSpain
  2. 2.Royal Academy of SciencesMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations