Free and fair elections is one of the pillars of healthy democracies. From the United States to Sierra Leone, supporters of the Blockchain to believe that the technology can bring a new level of transparency, Fairness and efficiency in the electoral process. Despite the enthusiasm of the Blockchain Community and the timid support by the policy Attempts to implement the technology, a mixed success and violent criticism.

Japan’s scientific center is testing Blockchain

at the end of August the Japanese city of Tsukuba has tested the use of the Blockchain technology in its election system. Tsukuba is a city that is already closely associated with the scientific research, and the recent Blockchain-Test is the latest step in the city, to explore new types of Innovation.

voters were able to participate by means of their My Number Card — a 12-digit ID number that is issued to all citizens of Japan, and in the year 2015, was introduced.

In a press release that was published on the official website of the city, it was said that the voters vote for the implementation of various social issue programs. The participants were able to choose which of the 13 initiatives, in your opinion, the most financial support. These ranged from the development of devices for the improvement of cancer diagnosis to a program for sound navigation in cities, and new equipment for Outdoor activities.

According to Cointelegraph, it was said that the Test was conducted in order to determine whether the democratic and transparent properties of the Blockchain would be well suited for the reduction of fraud and election tampering in the electoral process.

Although he was initially skeptical of the potential of Blockchain, said Tsukubas mayor Tatsuo Ugarashi:

“I thought Blockchain would involve more complicated procedures, but I realized that the minimal and simple.”

Although Japan’s recent Blockchain-to be Test run smoothly seems, not all government efforts to use the potential of the technology, found the same resonance.

Sierra Leone: The Blockchain-a choice that was not

On 7. March 2018, it was reported that Sierra Leone was the first country, the Blockchain technology in the electoral process began.

Agora Technologies, a Swiss company, published a series of Tweets in which it stated that it had monitored the Sierra Leone’s first Blockchain-based options:

The reality was a little different. In fact, Agora had observed the election process and in addition to the choice of a completely separate Blockchain-Test carried out to illustrate how future elections could be carried out by means of the technology.

The National electoral Commission of Sierra Leone (NEC) came into action and released a statement via Twitter in which she denies that during the election, Blockchain technology has been used:

The CEO of Agora, Leo Gammar, was forced to make the seemingly misleading statements of Agora correctly. The fact that the group was allowed, in addition to the choice of a private Blockchain-system test, it shows that the government authorities are, despite the media hype to try to make the election process more efficient and Blockchain is one of them.

Despite the seemingly rosy relationship with the NEC of Sierra Leone, the reactions and the commitment of the company in the case of the elections were mixed. Morris Marah, the founder of Sensi-Tech Hub from Freetown, expressed his concerns to RFI:

“What these people [Agora] say, is great. But you have not really tested, because you actually have taken only a paper map of the results and use them in your System. Do all the others, this is nothing New.”

the Swiss “the Crypto Valley” is testing Blockchain-choice

In recent years, it has become the Swiss city of Zug is less because of their mountain views and original Swiss architecture famous, but rather because of their low tax rates, and crypto-currencies. The recent influx of crypto-groups, building their headquarters in the Central Canton, has earned the city the nickname of “Crypto Valley”.

In the intention to establish itself as a Blockchain capital, permitted by the municipality payments in Bitcoin for services, and has recently carried out a successful Test of a Blockchain-election.

At the small vote of only 72 of the 240 citizens with access to the Online Voting System involved, between the 25. June and 1. July a non-binding vote took part. The test questionnaire asked the citizens, both smaller municipal Affairs, to vote, as well as about whether or not you find that a Blockchain-based eID System for Referendum voting should be used in the future. The Swiss news Agency writes that three persons stated that it is not digital to tune, 22 responded that they would use the Blockchain for tax returns, or survey, 19 responded that they would pay Parking fees with your digital ID, and three said they would use it to Borrow library books. The Zug communication Manager Dieter Miller described the Premiere as a success.

West Virginia is testing Blockchain-choice, but the joy is overshadowed

West Virginia is preparing to allow citizens to serve in the army, as well as other citizens living abroad, starting in November 2018, to select via Smartphone using an App called Voatz. This will be the first Time that you can participate via a Smartphone to a Federal election.

government employees of West Virginia posted a PDF file that describes the process:

“Everything you need to vote is to have a compatible Apple or Android mobile device and an approved and validated state – or Federal ID.”

The idea for the App came up for the first time at a Hacking summit, from the South by Southwest Technology Festival in Texas vwas eranstaltet.

West Virginia’s foreign Minister, the Mac, Warner was impressed by the biometric authentication system, the App and the elements of the Blockchain-based security. Both Warner as well as the Boston-based Start-up, founded by Voatz, claim that the System was safe.

The state was in may, a successful pilot project.

The recent sensational incident in connection with Blockchain technology in the election process was against the Background of a scandal in the relatively young history. In the year 2000, there were reports of a Miscount, and in 2016, several people have submitted alleged ballot in more than one state.

In a report by the Brookings Institute says that the National conference of state legislators has put forward a number of Considerations that need to be clarified for a wider implementation of electronic voting. Including topics such as safety, voter coercion, authentication, and the inconvenience to local officials. Although the report looks at the transformative potential of the Blockchain technology in the voting process in a positive way, he came to the conclusion that the Blockchain needs to be fully tested to take account of the costs and the scope for a wider implementation.

Matt Blaze, a cryptography and security researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, criticized the report and stated that the Blockchain bring weaknesses in the System. Blaze also said that the backup of the voting system “is easier, simpler and safer with other approaches feasible”.

Marian K. Schneider, President of Verified Voting, criticized the Voatz App also and explained that it was less a Blockchain-based App as a default App with the one attached to the Blockchain. The main concern is that, even though the App encrypts the data of the voter, the current System cannot guarantee that the phone and service network of the voter is free of weak. In relation to the protection of sensitive information transmitted over the Internet from the App, Schneider said:

“I think you have set a lot of assertions, which justify, in reality, no greater confidence in what you do, if you were to compare it with any other Internet-voting system.”

Voatz claimed that the criticism was “false Propaganda” and that “most of the comments are wrong or not correctly presented”.

The criticism of the capabilities of the App, however, is completely unfounded. A Test in Utah ended with the Start-up shortly before the start of the vote, a high Download could not support. Voatz, however, remained optimistic, and described the incident as a “valuable learning experience”.

critic

While the majority of the criticism of Online – and mobile-elections is directed to specific errors in programs, there are several prominent critics who are generally opposed to this idea.

Bruce Schneier, a cryptographer, computer scientist and author of several books on cryptography and computer security, published a Blog in which he spoke out against the use of the Blockchain in the case of elections.

“The only way to protect elections reliably against malice and accident, is the use of something that is in the case of a large use of non-hackable or unreliable. the best way to do that is to secure as much as possible from the System by means of paper.”

Schneier believes that the previous efforts to automate the electoral system to convey a message about the potential dangers of such a Transformation. In 2007, the States led by California and Ohio with comprehensive audits of their electronic voting devices. The result was anything other than positive. The Review found that weaknesses in almost all components are available:

“researchers were able to change the vote results to delete audit logs and to load malicious software on the systems without being detected. Some of your attacks could be carried out by a single Person, the access rights of a ordinary survey of employee; other attacks could be carried out remotely.”

This is not the only case in which electronic voting machines were compromised. In the year 2017, the Defcon Hacker conference gathered 25 devices and challenged the participants to hack this. As the weekend was coming to an end, had invited the participants of malicious Software on devices, the number of votes anonymously manipulated and the devices to crash. Schneier writes: “by bored hackers with no experience with voting machines that have played at a weekend, between the parties around a bit.”

In terms of the best solution wrote Schneier:

“security researchers agree that the gold Standard is a of voters verified paper choice. The easiest (and cheapest) way to achieve this is through the vote by optical Scan. The voters fill out their paper ballots by Hand; they are entered into a machine and counted automatically. This ballot is saved and serves as the last true record in the case of a recount in case of problems. Touch-screen machines that print a paper ballot and put it in a ballot box, may also work for voters with disabilities, as long as the ballots from the voters can be easily and checked read.”

The most devastating criticism of the concept comes from Joseph Lorenzo Hall of the center for democracy and technology, described the Whole thing as a “terrible idea”:

“It is an Internet-voting on the terribly poorly secured devices of the people of our terribly bad networks, to servers that are secure, without a physical paper record of the vote.”

This criticism of the governments seems to have not deterred to try the technology in the near future. At the Moment we can. only the local, not the national experiments to speak, but as they were performed in the United States, Japan, and Switzerland, it would not be exaggerated, there is a certain interest of the leading democracies in the world, to DLT to recognize