In Blockchain Voting, Leave Out the General Election

The Hindu     10th September 2020     Save    
QEP Pocket Notes

Context:  Recently, the Election Commission had explored the possibility of using blockchain technology for the purpose of enabling remote elections. 

Blockchain Technology

  • It is a distributed ledger of information which is replicated across various nodes on a “peer-to-peer” network for the purpose of ensuring integrity and verifiability of data stored on the ledger.
  • Traditionally been used as supporting structures for cryptocurrencies.
  • Applications:
        • Allowing individuals and companies to draft legally-binding “smart contracts.
        • Enabling detailed monitoring of supply chain networks
        • Several projects focused on enabling remote voting and elections.

      Arguments in favour of remote voting

      • Benefit internal migrants and seasonal workers
      • Useful for some remotely-stationed members of the Indian armed forces.

      Key issues and security concerns

      • Requirement of Physical presence: Electors would still have to physically reach a designated venue in order to cast their vote
      • Digitization and interconnectivity introduce additional points of failure external to the processes which exist in the present day.
      • Only slightly better than app-based voting systems: which have so far only been deployed in a few low-level elections in the West
      • The systems used in such low-stakes elections have suffered several blunders too, some of which could have been catastrophic if they had gone undetected.
      • Risks of identity disclosure: Blockchain solutions heavily rely on cryptographic protocols.
      • If any shortcomings exist in an implementation, it might stand to potentially unmask the identity and voting preferences of electors or allow an individual to cast a vote as someone else. 
      • Vulnerable to attacks: Requirement of physical presence and biometric authentication may not necessarily make a remote voting system invulnerable to attacks
      • An attacker may be able to clone the biometric attributes
      • Physical implants or software backdoors placed on an individual system could allow attackers to collect and deduce the voting choices of individuals.
      • Denial-of-Service attacks: provisioning of a dedicated line may make it increasingly prone to targeted Denial-of-Service attacks
        • Exclusion Errors: Exclude and disenfranchise certain individuals due to flaws in interdependent platforms, flaws in system design, as well as general failures caused by external factors. 
        • Unqualified obsession with technology:
        • If a solution uses technology, the general consensus is that it must work.
        • This optimism for technological solutions poses a threat and could stand to hinder free and fair elections in the future, if unchecked.

        Way Forward:

        • Improving on existing methods: such as postal ballots or proxy voting.
        • Creation of a ‘One Nation, One Voter ID’ system
        • Independent and fault tolerable System: Any solution to electoral problems must be software-independent and fault tolerable, avoiding affect the integrity or transparency of the overall process.
        • Should not be used in general election: Use of such a system could perhaps only be justified for lower-level elections.
        QEP Pocket Notes