Blockchain for Voting System
For many years, elections have served as a fundamental expression of democracy worldwide. The process tends to follow a similar pattern across different nations. Typically, a voter visits a polling station, verifies their identity, receives a ballot, enters a voting booth, marks their choice, and submits the completed ballot into a ballot box. This straightforward procedure seems clear-cut.
However, this system is highly susceptible to human influence and relies heavily on the integrity of everyone involved in the electoral process. Vulnerabilities exist at every stage of the election. Individuals may introduce fraudulent ballots into the box, administrative resources might be misused, and groups of coerced voters could travel from one station to another, participating in what are known as “carousel” voting schemes. Ultimately, election officials might sideline observers and manipulate the vote counts to align with their superiors’ wishes.
Is there a viable alternative? One possibility is electronic voting. Critics may quickly argue that this system lacks reliability, asserting that paper ballots offer at least some level of oversight. They point out that if elections transition to an electronic format, a server administrator might simply adjust the results to reflect a desired outcome. Even if we assume the elections are conducted with utmost integrity, the potential for external parties to hack the election server and alter the results remains a concern. Such risks were highlighted in the U.S. a few years ago, when foreign interference in elections was publicly acknowledged. The issue lies in the fact that all current electronic voting systems are still centralized. Essentially, these systems operate like standard websites on conventional servers, inheriting the same vulnerabilities. Even banking systems can fall prey to large-scale cyberattacks; thus, elections — where the stakes are significantly higher — are particularly at risk of manipulation.
Embracing Blockchain: A Modern Solution for Electoral Integrity
What comes next? Should we abandon outdated paper ballots? Not necessarily. In today’s fast-paced technological landscape, many individuals struggle to keep up with rapid changes. The overwhelming influx of information makes it nearly impossible to stay informed about every new development. Among the various innovations, blockchain presents a promising solution to the challenges facing electoral systems.
Blockchain operates by dividing information into distinct blocks, each linked together in a continuous chain through a secure encoding algorithm. This structure is where the term “Blockchain” originates. Each record within these blocks is sensitive to both time and sequence. Initially, a block containing specific data is created, accompanied by a unique security code known as a hash. Subsequent blocks store the hash of the previous block alongside their own data, creating a secure chain.
The integrity of the hash is crucial; any alteration to an earlier block will disrupt the entire chain. For instance, if someone attempts to modify the data in block #10, block #11 will immediately show a discrepancy because it references the hash of the altered block. To maintain consistency, the attacker would need to update all subsequent blocks sequentially. If the chain comprises ten million blocks, even a second per block would necessitate about 116 days to make such changes. Moreover, each block is fortified with advanced cryptographic methods, making unauthorized access exceedingly difficult. While any system can be compromised, cracking a single block’s code may take years with current computing power.
A significant vulnerability of many systems lies in their centralized nature, where a single point can be targeted. In contrast, blockchain technology enables a decentralized approach, where information is collectively stored by all participants rather than on a single server. The system regularly synchronizes and verifies all records, meaning that even if someone manages to manipulate data on their local computer, the original records would quickly replace the tampered information.
Translating this to an electoral context, imagine a scenario where the government provides voting software through various platforms, such as Google and Apple. Voters would download the application, install it, and initiate the voting process. The blockchain system would ensure complete anonymity; no one would know how each individual voted. Additionally, the use of traceable ring signatures allows for anonymity while ensuring security. If someone attempts to vote multiple times, the system can identify and exclude duplicate votes, effectively eliminating practices like «carousel» voting.
Once the software is installed and voting begins, the first voter automatically generates the initial block in the blockchain. The second voter then creates the next block, which includes the hash of the first block. The device of the second voter first downloads the existing blockchain file, adds the new vote data, and then sends the updated file back to the first voter. When the third voter participates, they locate the nearest blockchain file on the network, create a third block that contains their vote and the hash of the second block, and automatically shares this new file with the first two voters.
This means that three voting devices correspond to three separate blockchain files. If there are a million voters, there will be a million blockchain files. As more individuals cast their votes, the system’s reliability increases significantly. While it’s possible to hack one server or even multiple servers, breaching millions of devices simultaneously is virtually impossible.
What Benefits Will This Bring?
Implementing this system will lead to considerable cost savings in organizing elections. There will be no need to purchase paper, arrange for ballot printing, acquire pens, or create ballot boxes and booths.
Additionally, precinct election commissions will become unnecessary.
Transportation expenses related to the election process will also be reduced.
Voters will have the ability to cast their ballots from anywhere in the world, eliminating the need for absentee ballots and similar arrangements.
The system will provide complete protection against hacking and vote tampering.
It will also ensure that repeat voting is impossible, effectively eradicating carousel voting practices.
Election results will be available in real-time, meaning there will be no more prolonged waits for vote counting and the signing of protocols.
Blockchain technology is relatively straightforward and can be learned by an average developer. There are even resources online where you can find a basic blockchain source code in roughly two hundred lines of Java. With dedicated effort, a skilled programming team could establish a blockchain-based voting system within a few months.
Such an electoral system will be advantageous for the general public, as it will eliminate election fraud, ensuring that parties and candidates receive precisely the votes that were cast for them.
Critique of Electronic Voting
Skepticism regarding electronic voting exists among some experts. One of the most comprehensive and nuanced critiques was presented by science communicator Tom Scott in 2019. Let’s analyze his points through the lens of blockchain voting:
«Electronic voting lacks sufficient anonymity». In blockchain voting, homomorphic encryption can ensure complete anonymity for voters.
«Trust in electronic voting is hard to establish». The integrity of blockchain voting can be verified using tools designed for observers.
«Electronic ballots are vulnerable to replacement or damage». In blockchain systems, user data is encrypted immediately on the voter’s device, offering protection even before any network transmission occurs. The system cannot decrypt this data as it lacks the necessary private key.
«Original voting data can be altered, causing confusion». The original data is encrypted and added to the blockchain right after it is created, safeguarding its integrity.
«Participants cannot be certain their votes are counted». In blockchain voting, each participant can locate their key in the blockchain transaction log, confirming that their vote has been registered.
«Attacks on electronic voting systems are easily scalable». The likelihood of disruption or manipulation in blockchain voting is significantly lower than that of committing fraud with a substantial number of paper ballots. Traditional remote voting systems typically rely on a centralized IT architecture, where all data resides on a single server — the operator’s computer. In contrast, blockchain systems distribute the same information and its change history across numerous independent, synchronized computers.
With this model, the service operator cannot tamper with either the original voting data or the submitted ballots. Synchronizing changes across all independent nodes is technically unfeasible. Furthermore, in a decentralized network, voting data is inherently secure from loss. While a theoretical risk of data loss exists, it is minimal and far less likely than the risk of data loss associated with a centralized server operating standard remote voting.
«The central server of online voting is inherently a vulnerability». We concur with Scott on this point; centralized solutions do have this flaw. Consequently, all critical components of blockchain-based voting systems utilize a distributed architecture.
«There’s no guarantee that the database will accurately reflect the user’s choice». The user’s selection is encrypted on their device prior to being sent over the network, and the total number of votes is decrypted afterward. Therefore, it’s fundamentally impossible to trace a specific user or their choice from the stored files and transactions.
Conclusion
As we reached the close of the 20th century, the rise of the Internet saw online voting tools start to gain traction. These tools eliminate the necessity for physical presence, and since most are offered for free, associated organizational expenses can be minimized significantly.
However, the critical aspects of voting extend beyond cost; they encompass immutability and transparency. In comparing traditional paper ballots with electronic voting, the latter often falls short. Paper voting systems have established procedures to ensure ballot integrity and accurate counting, which have been widely tested and implemented. In contrast, online voting relies heavily on the “black box” provided by the service developers, where transparency is often sacrificed for convenience. These systems are designed not due to “technical impossibility,” but rather because of the “economic impracticality” of interfering with client operations. Consequently, user protection typically hinges solely on the terms of use.
For routine matters, such as deciding on a restaurant for a corporate event or selecting a gift for a colleague, this level of assurance may suffice. However, in sectors like economics and politics, which are heavily regulated by the state, the stakes for collective decision-making are much higher, and conventional web services frequently fail to meet legal standards for transparency and reliability.
Fortunately, the landscape has evolved in recent years with the introduction of new electronic voting solutions that leverage blockchain and cryptographic technologies. These innovations retain the benefits of remote electronic voting while offering a trust level that rivals that of traditional paper-based systems.
