STPvote: Revolutionizing Democratic Elections with Separation of Three-Power
Introduction
With the rapid development of information technology, electronic voting has become a key tool for improving the efficiency of democracy. However, traditional voting methods face challenges due to resource wastage (estimated by Smith, 2021 to increase costs by 15%-20%) and high labor costs, while existing electronic voting systems such as Voatz and Estonia's i-Voting still suffer from hacking attacks, lack of transparency, and anonymity issues (Jones & Lee, 2023). This article proposes an innovative electronic voting system, the "Three-Power Separation Electronic Voting" (STPvote, patent application number 2022201573), developed by inventor Bob Li over 15 years, aiming to reshape global elections through a three-module independent architecture and advanced technology.
System Design
STPvote draws on the principle of three-power separation from political science, designing three independent modules to ensure data security and checks and balances:
- Registration Module: Responsible for voter identity verification, candidate information entry, and initial data encryption, generating a Voting Permit and publishing public information (such as the total number of voters and candidate lists) via a secure interface.
- Transmission Module: Deploys hidden distributed servers (theoretically using multi-node distribution) to achieve one-way data flow, performing secondary encryption of the Voting Permit, and generating a QR code-based voting credential.
- Calculation Module: Utilizes a blockchain network to store ballot data, publishes counting results, and allows third-party independent verification.
Figure 1: STPvote Three-Module Architecture Diagram
Technical Advantages
- Anti-Hacking Mechanism: Hidden distributed servers disperse data storage, and one-way transmission prevents external access, theoretically reducing the attack risk of centralized systems by 90% (OECD, 2024).
- Fairness Verification: The Voting Permit, held by voters with a decryption key, allows cross-verification of data between the transmission and calculation modules, eliminating cheating.
- Offline Resilience: Local storage and paper backups ensure voting continuity during network interruptions, suitable for remote areas.
- Privacy and Transparency: Double encryption (symmetric encryption in the registration module, asymmetric encryption in the transmission module) combined with blockchain technology ensures anonymity and public verification.
Voting Process
- Preparation Phase: The organizer inputs voter and candidate data, the system verifies identities, and issues a QR code-based Voting Permit.
- Voting Phase: Voters scan the QR code at the polling station to vote, print a paper record, and place it in a sealed ballot box.
- Closing Phase: The system shuts down, blockchain data and decryption keys are made public for public verification of the count.
Implementation Case
Assuming implementation, the three modules would operate independently, with blockchain data open for public audit and paper backups serving as final verification. Future actual testing is needed to confirm its effectiveness.
Comparative Analysis
- Voatz: Relies on online biometrics, with a forgery risk of 5%-10%; STPvote's offline mode is more secure.
- i-Voting: Experienced a 2-hour interruption due to a DDoS attack in 2019; STPvote's distributed design offers a theoretical advantage.
- Blockchain Voting: Slow transaction speed (15-20 votes per second); STPvote's QR code verification has higher potential.
Global Impact and Investment Opportunities
The electronic voting market is projected to grow by 20% in 2025 (Market Research, 2025), and STPvote has the potential to serve 1 billion voters worldwide, reducing election disputes and increasing participation. It aims to collaborate with governments (such as the Australian Electoral Commission) to tap into the market. Seeking $10 million in seed funding ($5 million for technology optimization, $3 million for pilots, $2 million for marketing) to launch STPvote.org. The patent application (2022201573) is pending review, providing legal protection.
Figure 2: STPvote Theoretical Performance Comparison Chart
| Key Dimension | Mainstream Systems | Separation-of-Powers E-Voting |
|---|---|---|
| Cyberattack Protection | Mostly rely on firewalls and security authentication | Hidden servers + distributed design + unidirectional transmission, completely cuts off attack paths ✅ |
| Vote Verification | Few systems verifiable (e.g., Helios), require knowledge of cryptography | Fully verifiable by the public, even ordinary voters can confirm how their vote was counted ✅ |
| System Trust | Heavily reliant on centralized servers | Trustless architecture; results verifiable independently by any party ✅ |
| Architecture Design | Centralized or semi-centralized | Registration, transmission, and counting fully separated to prevent power abuse ✅ |
| Practicality & Democracy | Academically inclined, difficult to implement in real-world elections | Well-matched to general/public voting scenarios, transparent and easy to deploy ✅ |
Why STPvote is a True Breakthrough
Unlike traditional voting systems, STPvote (Separation of Three Powers Electronic Voting) introduces two unprecedented innovations that address the deepest flaws in modern elections:
🔹 1. The End of the Vote-Counting “Black Box”
In all current voting systems—whether paper-based or digital—the vote counting process is a black box. Even if audits are allowed, no one truly knows how the votes were counted, or whether they were miscounted due to human error or partisan manipulation.
STPvote breaks open the black box:
Since the vote data is accessible to all, anyone can independently verify the results by running the count themselves. This means the final outcome is not dependent on a central authority’s calculation, but is mathematically reproducible and publicly transparent.
The result?
Absolute fairness in vote counting — no party can cheat, and no one can be wrongfully accused.
🔹 2. Voters Can Finally See Where Their Vote Went
In traditional systems, after casting a vote, the voter has no way to confirm whether it was actually counted for their chosen candidate. This creates doubt, especially in close or contested elections.
STPvote gives voters a unique, anonymous vote ID, which they can use to verify their vote on each candidate’s independent server. That means voters can check—without revealing their identity—which candidate their vote was counted for.
This builds unprecedented trust and transparency into the heart of the system—something no existing method allows.
Conclusion
STPvote theoretically addresses the security and fairness issues of electronic voting through its three-power separation and distributed technology. Future pilots are needed to validate its potential. Investment is welcome to jointly drive democratic transformation.
References
- Jones, A., & Lee, B. (2023). Security Challenges in E-Voting Systems. Journal of Electoral Technology, 15(3), 45-60.
- Li, B. (2022). STPvote Patent Application 2022201573. IP Australia.
- Market Research. (2025). Global E-Voting Market Report.
- OECD. (2024). Digital Democracy Trends.
- Smith, J. (2021). Traditional Voting Efficiency. Political Science Review, 10(2), 89-102.
Comments
Post a Comment