Electronic voting

Counting Devices

Electronic vote counting systems have been used in elections since the 1960s , since punch cards appeared.

A newer optical scanning system can read a voter’s mark from a ballot.

Direct voice recording systems, accumulating voices on one device , are used everywhere in Brazil , and are also quite widespread in India , the Netherlands , Venezuela and the USA .

Internet voting systems have gained popularity and are used in government elections and referenda in the UK , Estonia and Switzerland , as well as municipal elections in Canada and party elections in the United States and France .

Filling devices

There are systems that include a device for filling out an electronic newsletter ( touch screen or barcode scanner ). Also, they are often equipped with an additional auxiliary device for printing a paper copy of the ballot or voting receipt. Storage and vote counting occurs on a separate device.

Paper and electronic voting system

The usual paper voting system implies the use of paper ballots for voting and manual vote counting, with the advent of spreadsheets , systems have appeared in which ballots are filled in manually and counted electronically (voting systems using punch cards, tag reading systems, and later systems using digital pen ).

Examples: SIB-97, SIB-2000 ^[1] ; KOIB- 2003, KOIB-2010 ^{[2] [3]} ;

Direct-Record Voting System

The direct recording voting system collects votes by providing mechanical or electro-optical components (usually buttons or touch screens ) that can be used by the voter. Information about the votes is accumulated on special media ; after voting, it is summarized in tables stored on removable media , and can also be printed.

The system can also transfer totals to the voting center for reconciliation and calculation.

Examples: GAS "Vybory" ;Keg

Voting systems using public networks

These are voting systems that use electronic ballots and transmit information about votes from voting places over open computer networks . Information can be transmitted after each vote, periodically in the form of a set of votes, or once at the end of the vote. Thus organized Internet voting and telephone voting. In such systems, both vote counting at the polling place and centralized counting can be used.

Companies and organizations typically use Internet voting to elect officials and members of the Council, as well as other internal elections. Internet voting systems are widely used in the USA, Great Britain, Ireland, Switzerland and Estonia. In Switzerland, where such systems are an established form of local elections, voters receive their personal passwords to access voting by mail. Most voters in Estonia can vote in parliamentary or local elections via the Internet. This is possible due to the fact that most Estonians have identification cards with microchips that can be read on a computer, and with these cards they gain access to the electronic voting system. All that is needed is a card with a microchip, a computer connected to the Internet, and a reader - and the voter can vote from anywhere in the world.

Examples: Estonian ID card .

Interactive Voting Systems

These systems use voting consoles to collect results. These remotes usually resemble a TV remote or a calculator. The form factor of the remotes depends on the manufacturer and service provider.

The signal from these remotes arrives at the receiving base station, which is connected to a computer with special software installed. The voting results are processed on this computer and displayed on the screen.

Output of voting results is possible both on the projector screen or plasma panel in the form of slides of the MS PowerPoint ™ presentation, and in the form of a report in a file with the * xls extension (MS Excel ™).

The advantages of this system over other means of counting are:

• the ability to display voting results immediately after the end of the vote, with a delay of not more than 1-2 seconds;
• display the voting process in real time;
• All remotes have a unique individual number. that allows you to use this system as a tool to identify winners in various quizzes;
• since the consoles have unique numbers, the possibility of juggling the results during the voting is excluded;

Features of this system:

• Simple poll - a simple poll of the voting participants about their opinion;
• A quiz is testing that involves one or more correct answers. For each answer it is possible to accrue points;
• Voting - Voting on the basis of "For / Against / Abstained."

One of the leaders in the Russian market for the provision of these services is VoteTech ™.

Electronic voting systems can be used at any stage of creation, distribution, voting, collection and counting of votes, while providing certain advantages ^{[ what? ]} . Deficiencies at the same time also occur due to errors and omissions of electronic components. Charles Stewart of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said that in 2004 it was counted ^{[ where? ]} by 1 million votes more compared to 2000 due to the fact that electronic systems exclude the possibility of missing votes, unlike mechanical counting systems.

In May 2004, the US Government Accounting Division published a report entitled “The Benefits and Current Challenges of Electronic Voting,” which analyzed the benefits and challenges of electronic voting. The second report, entitled “Work to Improve the Security and Reliability of Electronic Voting Systems,” published in September 2005, described some of the problems of electronic voting and upcoming improvements.

The report showed that electronic voting systems are becoming more complex, including software, so various types of violations are possible. It was also said that since voters cannot confirm their vote in any way, such systems cannot be trusted. On the other hand, some IT experts say that you cannot trust any program that you are not the author of.

Critics of electronic voting, including Bruce Schneier , point out that "electronic voting devices must be equipped with a system by which the voter can confirm his choice on paper ... the software must be open to universal research" to ensure that the work is correct. Paper proof is necessary because computers may crash and voting devices may be vulnerable.

E-Newsletters

Electronic voting systems can use electronic ballots to store votes in computer memory . This eliminates the need for the cost of printing newsletters. When conducting elections in which ballots must be in several languages, the electronic system can be configured to use multilingual ballots on the same device. This feature is unique to electronic voting. There is no need to calculate how many ballots in each language must be put in each polling station.

Critics say that the problem of distributing ballots in different languages ​​to polling stations can be solved by printing ballots right on the spot. They also argue that checking the quality of software, hardware, checking the quality of installation and tuning systems is complex and expensive, and there is no guarantee that electronic newsletters will be less expensive than printing paper newsletters.

Availability

Electronic voting systems are quite accessible to people with disabilities. Punch card systems and scanning systems are not accessible to people with visual impairments. Push-button systems can cause difficulties for people with limited mobility. Electronic systems can use headphones, pedals, joysticks and other devices to ensure accessibility.

Some organizations criticize the availability of electronic systems and offer an alternative. Some dysfunctional voters (such as the blind) may use tactile systems that specially mark the places where you want to put a mark. But at the same time, people with limited motor functions cannot use such systems.

Cryptographic Protection

Electronic voting systems allow voters to confirm their votes using mathematical calculations. Such systems reduce the likelihood of recording incorrect voices. One way is to use a digital signature . At the same time, the reliability and accuracy of voting can be guaranteed, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed, and there is the possibility of intimidation or bribery of the voter .

Some cryptographic solutions allow the voter to confirm the correctness of the choice himself, without resorting to the services of a third party. Each vote can be marked with a randomly generated session identifier, which allows the voter to verify that his vote has been correctly counted using a public voting monitoring system.

Voter intentions

E-voting systems can provide voter feedback to identify issues such as insufficient or overexposed votes that could lead to ballot damage. Immediate feedback can be helpful in clarifying voter intentions.

Audit

The main problem with any voting device is to make sure that the votes are correctly counted and recorded. It is often resolved through an independent audit system, also called “independent verification.” Such systems include the ability of voters to verify how their votes have been counted.

There are many technologies to convince voters of the correctness of the vote count, the prevention of failures or fraud, and the conduct of audits. Some systems use cryptography , paper confirmation, audio monitoring , as well as double recording technology (on electronic media and paper).

Professor Rebecca Mercury, creator of the concept of VVPAT (Audit on Voter-Certified Paper Ballots), justifies the effectiveness of printing a paper ballot for further confirmation by the voter before final counting (later this method was called the “Mercury Method”). To be finally confirmed, the vote must be confirmed by the voter without the use of visual or audio means. If a voter is forced to use, for example, a barcode scanner in order to confirm his choice, then such a voice cannot be considered truly confirmed, since in fact it is not the voter who confirms it, but the electronic device.

Audit-based voting systems give voters signed receipts that can be taken home. Such receipts do not allow you to find out exactly how the voter voted, but they allow you to check that the vote has been counted, to find out the total number of votes and the results of the vote.

Systems that let outsiders know exactly how the voter voted were never used in state elections and were declared illegal. The main reason for this decision is the ability to intimidate voters and buy their votes.

Audit systems can also be used to detect equipment problems and fraud. In the case of using the VVPAT system, the paper ballot is the main document, and electronic votes are used only for preliminary calculation. For a successful audit of a voting device, a whole sequence of events is required.

Hardware

Improper hardware security can lead to serious problems. Extraneous equipment can be embedded inside the voting device or between the user and the device by unscrupulous service personnel, so even sealing the device does not always help.

Software

Security experts, such as Bruce Schneier , believe that the source code for the software used in voting devices should be open to public scrutiny. Others are calling for software to be created and distributed as free software.

Testing and certification

One of the methods for detecting errors is parallel testing conducted on election day with randomly selected devices. So, in the 2000 US presidential election, only an average of 2 votes were incorrectly counted in each constituency.

Other

The flow of criticism can be reduced by conducting inspections and checks in order to identify fraudulent hardware and software , as well as by carrying out a set of measures to prevent its implementation. The advantages of electronic voting systems are a short counting time and an increase in voter turnout, especially when conducting online voting.

Критики также говорят о том, что при проведении дистанционного голосования очень сложно или невозможно идентифицировать избирателя, поэтому такие голосования сильно уязвимы.

До сих пор неясно, меньше ли общая стоимость электронных систем голосования стоимости иных систем.

В декабре 2011 года на выборах в Госдуму системами КЭГ (комплекс электронного голосования) были оснащены 320 участков. ^[4]

На президентских выборах в России в марте 2012 года комплексы электронного голосования применялись на 337 избирательных участков в семи субъектах Федерации (всего 311 КЭГов, из них 146 были в Татарстане , остальные были установлены в Кабардино-Балкарии , Мурманской и Томской областях, республиках Коми , Марий Эл , Хакасии , Чечне ), а также за границей — в Латвии , Германии , Казахстане (на Байконуре ) и Польше .

27 февраля 2019 года в Госдуму был внесен законопроект о создании в Москве цифровых участков для голосования на выборах в субъектах России. Как говорится в пояснительной записке к проекту, «при проведении дополнительных выборов депутатов Государственной думы Федерального собрания Российской Федерации, а также ряда региональных выборов избиратели, находящиеся в день голосования на выборах за пределами избирательного округа, в котором они обладают активным избирательным правом, смогут реализовать его путём голосования на цифровых участках» ^[5] .

• 2000 год, Калифорния — проблемы с системами электронного голосования во Флориде во время президентских выборов .

• 2 марта 2004 года, Калифорния — неправильно настроенный сканер отметок пропустил 6692 пустых бюллетеня во время президентских выборов .

• 2 марта 2004 года, Калифорния — устройства PES TSx не позволили большому количеству избирателей исполнить свой долг из-за неисправных считывателей электронных карт для голосования.

• 30 октября 2006 года — в Нидерландах была отозвана лицензия на 1187 устройств из-за того, что они позволяли подслушивать за процессом голосования с расстояния до 40 метров.

• Октябрь 2006 года — на выборах в Майами , из-за неправильной калибровки сенсорного экрана три голоса были учтены как голоса за демократов, хотя отображались как голоса за республиканцев.

• Устройства AccuVote -TSx были изучены группой учёных из университета Принстона . Они показали, что на эти машины может быть установлено мошенническое ПО менее чем за минуту. Также, учёные обнаружили, что эти устройства могут передавать друг другу компьютерные вирусы во время сеансов связи до или после выборов.

• В фильме « Человек года » (2006) герой Робина Уильямса выигрывает президентские выборы благодаря ошибке во время подсчёта голосов на электронном устройстве.

• Д/ф «Взламывая демократию» ( 2006 ) запечатлел аномалии и нарушения в работе электронных систем для голосования, произошедшие с 2000 по 2004г, особенно во Флориде .

• Д/ф «Неучтённый» ( 2008 ) показал проблемы АО и ПО устройств Diebold .

• В начале одного из хэллоуинских спецвыпусков ( Treehouse of Horror XIX ) мультсериала « Симпсоны » отображена сцена, в которой Гомер Симпсон в ходе президентских выборов США за 2008 год , используя терминал с сенсорным экраном, пытается проголосовать за Барака Обаму , однако все шесть раз автомат засчитывает голос в пользу Джона Маккейна . Когда Гомер понял в чём тут дело, автомат убил его, засосав внутрь себя и 'выплюнув', после чего Джаспер Бердли наклеил на голову лежащего на полу тела наклейку «Я проголосовал!» ^[6]

• В сериале « Герои » влиятельный преступник Линдерман помогает выиграть выборы Нейтану Петрелли при помощи мальчика, управляющего электронными устройствами через прикосновение.

• Телеголосование
• Машина для голосования
• Устройство сенсорного голосования
• Поточное сканирование документов
• Эстонская ID-карта
• Сертификация устройств электронного голосования
• Аппаратные средства защиты информационных систем
• Нарушения на выборах
• Протоколы тайного голосования

• Автоматизация выборов: филиппинский вариант
• Бразилия — страна сплошной электоральной автоматизации
• Выборы в США: от «рычажков» до электроники
• Подробности: Выборы в вопросах и ответах