ELECTRONIC VOTING

What?
■ Electronic voting refers to voting using electronic means
to either aid or take care of the chores of casting and
counting votes.
■ Electronic voting technology can include punched cards,
optical scan voting systems and specialized voting kiosks
(including self-contained direct-recording electronic
voting systems, or DRE).
■ It can also involve transmission of ballots and votes via
telephones, private computer networks, or the Internet.
■ e-Voting which is physically supervised by representatives
of governmental or independence electoral authorities
■ Remote e-voting via internet (i-voting) where the voter
submits their votes electronically to the election
authorities for any location.
Typology of Voting Systems
■ Direct recording
electronic (DRE)
voting machines:
DREs can come with
or without a paper
trail (VVPAT, or voter-
verified paper audit
trail). VVPATs are
intended to provide
physical evidence of
the votes cast.
■ OMR systems which are based
on scanners that can recognize
the voters’ choice on special
machine-readable ballot papers.
OMR systems can be either
central count systems (where
ballot papers are scanned and
counted in special counting
centres) or precinct count
optical scanning (PCOS) systems
(where scanning and counting
happens in the polling station,
directly as voters feed their
ballot paper into the voting
machine).
■ Electronic ballot printers (EBPs) devices similar to a DRE
machine that produce a machine-readable
paper or electronic token containing the voter’s
choice. This token is fed into a separate ballot
scanner which does the automatic vote count.
■ Internet voting systems where votes are
transferred via the Internet to a central
counting server. Votes can be cast either from
public computers or from voting kiosks in
polling stations or—more commonly—from any
Internet-connected computer accessible to a
voter.
Electronic Voting:
Examples/Experiences from Various
Countries.
Estonia
Estonia
■ Each Estonian citizen possesses an electronic chip-
enabled ID card, which allows him/her to vote over
the internet. The ID card is inserted into a card
reader, which is connected to a computer. Once
his/her identity is verified (using the electronic ID
card as a sort of digital signature), he/she can then
cast his/her vote via the internet. Votes are not
considered final until the end of election day, so
Estonian citizens can go back and re-cast their
votes until election day is officially over.
■ Popularity of online voting in Estonia has increased
widely throughout the nation, as in the elections of
2014 and 2015, nearly one third of Estonian votes
were cast online.
Brazil
Brazil
■ In 1996, after tests conducted on more than 50
municipalities, the Brazilian Electoral Justice has
launched their "voting machine". Since 2000, all
Brazilian voters are able to use the electronic ballot
boxes to choose their candidates. In 2010
presidential election which had more than 135
million voters, the result was defined 75 minutes
after the end of voting.
■ The electronic ballot box is made up of two micro-
terminals (one located in the voting cabin and the
other with the voting board representative) which
are connected by a 5-meter cable. Externally, the
micro-terminals have only a numerical keyboard,
which does not accept any command executed by
the simultaneous pressure of more than one key. In
case of power failure, the internal battery provides
the energy or it can be connected to an automotive
battery. The Brazilian electronic ballot box serves
today as a model for other countries.
India
India
■ Electronic Voting Machines ("EVM") are being used
in Indian General and State Elections to implement
electronic voting in part from 1999 elections and
recently in 2017 state elections held in five states
across India. EVMs have replaced paper ballots in
local, state and general (parliamentary) elections in
India.
■ There were earlier claims regarding EVMs'
tamper ability and security which have not been
proved. After rulings of Delhi High Court,
Supreme Court and demands from various
political parties, Election Commission decided to
introduce EVMs with voter-verified paper audit
trail (VVPAT) system. The VVPAT system was
introduced in 8 of 543 parliamentary
constituencies as a pilot project in Indian general
election, 2014
USA
United States
■ Following the 2002 Help America Vote Act, the United States
saw a massive investment in voting machines, many without a
paper trail.
■ In 2005 and 2007 the US Voluntary Voting System Guidelines
(VVSG), currently the most comprehensive guidelines with
specifications and requirements for certifying voting
machines, were published.
■ By 2008 many states required paper trails, making voting
machines without a paper trail obsolete.
■ As of 2010, 40 states have moved towards requiring paper
trails.
Features of the new EVM: Bangladesh

.
Bangladesh
All EVMs features several layers of security, but the machine’s
users will have to go through three security features. All EVM
units have built-in password protection and features complete
access control. EVMs with one control unit and three ballot
units were used for city elections, but EVMs to be used for the
11th general polls will have one control unit and one ballot
unit.

Timelocked access control

■ As the first layer of security, a timelock will ensure the EVM
machine remains inoperable till 8am, when voting usually
begins in Bangladesh. These machines, built by Bangladesh
Machine Tools Factory (BMTF), will be in lockdown before the
scheduled voting time—reducing the possibility of vote-
rigging.
Mandatory use of SD and audit cards
■ An EVM will only be ready for voting once an SD card
containing voter data, and an audit card containing
information on the presiding officer, assistant
presiding officer and polling officer stationed at a
particular polling centre, is inserted
Secured PIN
■ After insertion of both the correct SD card and the
audit card, the operator will have to type in a PIN
number unique to each EVM. The PIN will only be
provided to the presiding officer, and if he is unable to
perform his or her duties, the assistant presiding
officer will receive the PIN and the necessary
authorization.
Secured password protection
■ The assistant presiding officers can only operate EVMs
after selecting their name and typing in a unique
password—which they will receive through an SMS just
before the scheduled voting. Operating the machine is
nearly impossible without authorization.
Biometric security system
■ The operators have to provide passwords and
fingerprints to use the EVM. Thus, even if someone
has the password, the individual will not have access
to the machine without a matching finger print.
Voter identification
■ After accessing the EVM, a list of voter data will be visible
on the screen of the machine. Voters can be identified by
three ways—smart cards, voter ID numbers, or finger
prints. To identify voters, multiple options can be used,
but fingerprint verification is mandatory.
■ Once a person submits his or her fingerprint, the unit will
display information about that person on multiple
screens. This feature will aid the polling agents to identify
the voter.
Protection against vote rigging
■ There will be a fixed list of voters for every booth. A voter can
only cast a ballot in his or her designated polling booth. A
voter will be identified with the help of biometric verification
and a National ID card, and only after passing this
verification, the voter will be able to cast ballot.
■ Anyone attempting to cast a fake ballot will immediately be
caught red-handed, as his or her voter information will not
match the fingerprint, prompting the EVM to display an “error”
message.
Dual storage of data
■ Information about ballots cast in an EVM unit will be stored in
an internal data centre, and will simultaneously be backed up
in an external memory card. If one unit malfunctions or gets
damaged, the memory card can be recovered and inserted to
another machine for continued operation.
Properties of EVM

■ Accuracy: (1) it is not possible for a vote to be

altered, (2) it is not possible for a validated vote to
be eliminated from the final tally, and (3) it is not
possible for an invalid vote to be counted in the
final tally.
■ Democracy: (1) it permits only eligible voters to vote
and, (2) it ensures that eligible voters vote only
once.
■ Privacy: (1) neither authorities nor anyone else can
link any ballot to the voter who cast it and (2) no
voter can prove that he voted in a particular way.
■ Verifiability: anyone can independently verify that
all votes have been counted correctly.
■ Availability: (1) the system works properly as long
as the poll stands and (2) any voter can have
access to it from the beginning to the end of the
poll.
■ Resume Ability: the system allows any voter who
had interrupted his/her voting process to resume it
or restart it while the poll stands.
Strengths

■ Faster vote count and tabulation.

■ More accurate results as human error is excluded.
■ Convenience for voters.
■ Potentially increased participation and turnout,
particularly with the use of Internet voting.
■ Prevention of fraud in polling stations and during
the transmission and tabulation of results by
reducing human intervention.
Weaknesses

■ Lack of transparency.
■ Limited openness and understanding of the system for
non-experts.
■ Potential violation of the secrecy of the vote, especially in
systems that perform both voter authentication and vote
casting.
■ Risk of manipulation by insiders with privileged access to
the system or by hackers from outside.
■ Possibility of fraud through large-scale manipulation by a
small group of insiders.
■ Increased costs for both purchasing and maintaining e-
voting systems.
■ Increased infrastructure and environmental
requirements, for example, with regard to power supply,
communication technology, temperature, humidity.
■ Increased security requirements for protecting the voting
system during and between elections including during
transport, storage and maintenance.
■ Limited recount possibilities.
■ Need for additional voter education campaigns.
■ Possible conflict with the existing legal framework.
■ Possible lack of public trust in e-voting-based elections
as a result of the weaknesses above.
1. Define the goals clearly.
2. Be aware of the challenges (needs, urgency, costs
and timing)
3. Learn from previous, international experience
4. Make sure electronic voting is the most
appropriate solution
5. Provide for transparent auditing and certification
6. Allow enough time for project implementation
7. Plan for training, professional development, and
civic and voter education
8. Consider sustainability issues and plan for the
future, not only for today
9. Be aware that trust can take years to build but be
lost in a day
References

■ International IDEA, 2011. Introducing Electronic Voting:

Essential Considerations, The International Institute for
Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA)
Policy Paper December 2011
■ D. Ashok Kumar and T. Ummal Sariba Begum 2012.
Electronic Voting Machine – A Review. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Pattern Recognition, Informatics
and Medical Engineering , March 21-23, 2012
Thank YOU
Benefits of Internet Voting

■ Possibility of multilingual user interfaces that can serve a

multilingual electorate better than paper ballots.
■ Reduction of spoilt ballot papers as voting systems can warn
voters about any invalid votes (although consideration should be
given to ensuring that voters are able to cast a blank vote should
they so choose).
■ Potential long-term cost savings through savings in poll worker
time, and reduced costs for the production and distribution of
ballot papers.
■ Increased accessibility, for example by audio ballot papers for
blind voters, with Internet voting as well for housebound voters
and voters from abroad.
■ Cost savings by using Internet voting: global reach with very
little logistical overhead. No shipment costs, no delays in
sending out material and receiving it back.
■ Compared to postal voting, Internet voting can reduce the
incidence of vote-selling and family voting by allowing multiple
voting where only the last vote counts and prevent
manipulation with mail-in deadlines through direct control of
voting times.