Advertisement

Client/Server Tradeoffs for Online Elections

  • Ivan Damgård
  • Mads Jurik
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2274)

Abstract

We present various trade offs for voting schemes which, compared to known solutions, allow voters to do less work at the expense of more work done by the tallying servers running the election. One such scheme produces ballots of essentially minimal size while keeping the work load on the tally servers on a practical level. Another type of trade off leads to a voting scheme that remains secure, even if an adversary can monitor all client machines used by voters to participate. This comes at the price of introducing an additional party who is trusted to carry out registration of voters correctly.

Keywords

Vote Scheme Commitment Scheme Homomorphic Encryption Random Oracle Model Client Machine 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Abe: Universally verifiable MIX net with verification work independent of the number of MIX centers; proceedings of EuroCrypt 98, Springer Verlag LNCS.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ohkubo and Abe: A Length-Invariant Hybrid Mix Proceedings of Asiacrypt 00, Springer Verlag LNCS.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baudron, Fouque, Pointcheval, Poupard and Stern: Practical Multi-Candidate Election Scheme, manuscript, May 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Cramer, R. Gennaro, B. Schoenmakers: A Secure and Optimally Efficient Multi-Authority Election Scheme, Proceedings of EuroCrypt 97, Springer Verlag LNCS series, pp. 103–118.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Damgård and Jurik: A Generalisation, a Simplification and some Applications of Paillier’s Probabilistic Public-Key System, Proc. of Public Key Cryptography 2001, Springer Verlag LNCS series.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Fujioka, T. Okamoto & K. Otha: A practical secret voting scheme for large scale elections., Advances in Cryptology-Auscrypt’ 92, pp. 244–251.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. Schoenmakers: A simple publicly verifiable secret sharing scheme and its application to electronic voting, Advances in Cryptology-Crypto’ 99, vol. 1666 of LNCS, pp. 148–164.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Cramer, M. Franklin, B. Schoenmakers & M. Yung: Multi-authority secret ballot elections with linear work, Advances in Cryptology-Eurocrypt’ 96, vol. 1070 of LNCS, pp. 72–83.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Cramer, I. Damgård and J. Nielsen:Multiparty Computation from Threshold Homomorphic Encryption, Proceedings of EuroCrypt 2001, Springer Verlag LNCS series 2045, pp.280–300.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boudot: Efficient Proof that a Comitted Number Lies in an Interval, Proc. of EuroCrypt 2000, Springer Verlag LNCS series 1807.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Damgård and Fujisaki: An Integer Commitment Scheme based on Groups with Hidden Order, Manuscript, 2001, available from the Eprint archive.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fujisaki and Okamoto: Statistical Zero-Knowledg Protocols to prove Modular Polynomial Relations, proc. of Crypto 97, Springer Verlag LNCS series 1294.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oded Goldreich, Silvio Micali, and Avi Wigderson: How to play any mental game or a completeness theorem for protocols with honest majority, in Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 218–229, New York City, 25–27 May 1987.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Hirt and K. Sako: Efficient Receipt-Free Voting based on Homomorphic Encryption, Proceedings of EuroCrypt 2000, Springer Verlag LNCS series, pp. 539–556.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    P. Pallier: Public-Key Cryptosystems based on Composite Degree Residue Classes, Proceedings of EuroCrypt 99, Springer Verlag LNCS series, pp. 223–238.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Bar-Ilan, and D. Beaver: Non-Cryptographic Fault-Tolerant Computing in a Constant Number of Rounds, Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computation, 1989, pp. 201–209.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivan Damgård
    • 1
  • Mads Jurik
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer Science, BRICSAarhus UniversityDenmark

Personalised recommendations