An honest and falsified voting system - ThreeBallot. Suddenly wait?
As we have elections ahead, I will tell about different voting technologies. Of course, it is hard to believe that some of the bright ideas can be adopted in such a democratic country as ours, but, as they say, will not be superfluous.
Today I will talk about an interesting voting system, “invented” five years ago by one of the authors of the RSA cryptoalgorithm, RC4 / RC5 cipher and MD5 hash function, Ronald Rivest. It is called Three Ballot Voting System, the original publication in English can be found on the website of the university where Rivest works . What is it so remarkable?
And the fact that with the use of this system the voter can make sure that his vote is taken into account, while maintaining complete confidentiality . That is, the voting is, on the one hand, secret, on the other - checked by the voters themselves.
')
The peculiarity of the Rivest technique is that there are no abstruse cryptoalgorithms here, everything is simple and understandable even to the closest voter. True, the rules for filling in the newsletter are slightly non-trivial.
The ThreeBallot system uses only a paper bulletin, not a regular one, but consisting of three identical tear-off parts. The only difference between them - the numbers at the bottom of each "strip". On all three, these numbers are different, completely random.
All that needs to be done is to put a tick in front of the candidates for which you cast your vote in TWO of the three stripes, and only in one of them if you vote AGAINST the corresponding candidate. It is impossible to leave empty and it is impossible to paint over the entire row, you need to put at least one mark in each row (this would mean against) or two marks (“for”).
After the special electoral machine issues a COPY of any of the three “receipts”, at the choice of the voter, and the ballot itself is torn into three parts, and they all go to the ballot box mixed with each other, and with others the same.
Now let's see what happens.
The receipt does not contain the name of the voter, therefore, anonymity is obvious. To understand who you voted for more is simple: you need to stupidly calculate filled circles. Who will be more - and he won. Results can be easily published with numbers - a list of all bulletins with circles. For example, on the public website of the election commission. Obviously, they should be exactly three times more than the correct voters (and they can easily be considered at the entrance to the site!). The voter is still able to check whether his vote is taken into account. I can take my copy and search for it among the published ones, for example. If I don't find it, it means that someone has thrown out my voice and this is a precedent. And no one will forbid those who wish to control everything , to stand at the entrance in the morning and watch the visitors counter, and then check with the published number of “receipts” - there should be no more than 3 times as many.
But at the same time, I cannot take a copy of my decision out of the polling station, since, according to my receipt, it is impossible to determine whether I voted for or against. This is important if someone wants to "buy votes" from the public.
Rivest published his work as a public domain, under the slogan "Our democracy is too important".
The only disadvantage of this system, visible to me, is the difficulty of filling out the newsletter.80-year-olds are unlikely to cope with it. Or is it not a minus?
Today I will talk about an interesting voting system, “invented” five years ago by one of the authors of the RSA cryptoalgorithm, RC4 / RC5 cipher and MD5 hash function, Ronald Rivest. It is called Three Ballot Voting System, the original publication in English can be found on the website of the university where Rivest works . What is it so remarkable?
And the fact that with the use of this system the voter can make sure that his vote is taken into account, while maintaining complete confidentiality . That is, the voting is, on the one hand, secret, on the other - checked by the voters themselves.
')
The peculiarity of the Rivest technique is that there are no abstruse cryptoalgorithms here, everything is simple and understandable even to the closest voter. True, the rules for filling in the newsletter are slightly non-trivial.
The ThreeBallot system uses only a paper bulletin, not a regular one, but consisting of three identical tear-off parts. The only difference between them - the numbers at the bottom of each "strip". On all three, these numbers are different, completely random.
All that needs to be done is to put a tick in front of the candidates for which you cast your vote in TWO of the three stripes, and only in one of them if you vote AGAINST the corresponding candidate. It is impossible to leave empty and it is impossible to paint over the entire row, you need to put at least one mark in each row (this would mean against) or two marks (“for”).
After the special electoral machine issues a COPY of any of the three “receipts”, at the choice of the voter, and the ballot itself is torn into three parts, and they all go to the ballot box mixed with each other, and with others the same.
Now let's see what happens.
The receipt does not contain the name of the voter, therefore, anonymity is obvious. To understand who you voted for more is simple: you need to stupidly calculate filled circles. Who will be more - and he won. Results can be easily published with numbers - a list of all bulletins with circles. For example, on the public website of the election commission. Obviously, they should be exactly three times more than the correct voters (and they can easily be considered at the entrance to the site!). The voter is still able to check whether his vote is taken into account. I can take my copy and search for it among the published ones, for example. If I don't find it, it means that someone has thrown out my voice and this is a precedent. And no one will forbid those who wish to control everything , to stand at the entrance in the morning and watch the visitors counter, and then check with the published number of “receipts” - there should be no more than 3 times as many.
But at the same time, I cannot take a copy of my decision out of the polling station, since, according to my receipt, it is impossible to determine whether I voted for or against. This is important if someone wants to "buy votes" from the public.
Rivest published his work as a public domain, under the slogan "Our democracy is too important".
The only disadvantage of this system, visible to me, is the difficulty of filling out the newsletter.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/133815/
All Articles