Complementarity Between STPvote and End-to-End Verifiable Voting (E2E-V)

Complementarity Between STPvote and End-to-End Verifiable Voting (E2E-V)

I. Two Approaches: Structural Governance vs. Cryptographic Verification

In the field of electronic voting research, End-to-End Verifiable Voting (E2E-V), promoted by institutions such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), represents a cryptographic approach to building trust in election systems.

The core objectives of E2E-V include:

  • Allowing voters to verify that their ballot was cast as intended

  • Ensuring that ballots are recorded as cast

  • Enabling public verification that votes are tallied as recorded

  • Using cryptographic techniques such as encryption, zero-knowledge proofs, and mixnets

The philosophical foundation of E2E-V may be summarized as:

Trust established through mathematical proof.

By contrast, the Separation of Three Powers Electronic Voting System (STPvote) follows a different architectural path.

The core features of STPvote include:

  • Structural separation of registration authority, transmission authority, and computation authority

  • Institutional and physical isolation of critical powers

  • Public access to downloadable voting data for independent tally verification

  • Retention of paper ballots as the final legal reference

The philosophical foundation of STPvote may be summarized as:

No single power should be the center of trust.

II. Different Layers of Risk Control

E2E-V primarily addresses:

  • How to prove that votes have not been altered

  • How to enable public mathematical verification of results

STPvote primarily addresses:

  • How to prevent systemic manipulation caused by concentration of power

  • How to reduce attack success probability at the structural level

In other words:

  • E2E-V is a mechanism for verifying correctness.

  • STPvote is a framework for preventing power concentration risk.

Their focus areas differ, but they are not in conflict.

III. Structural Defense + Cryptographic Verification = Dual-Layer Security

When combined, the two systems may form a dual-layer protection model:

Layer 1: Structural Separation (STPvote)

  • Reduces centralized attack surfaces

  • Distributes internal manipulation risk

  • Increases the cost of coordinated system compromise

Layer 2: Cryptographic Verifiability (E2E-V)

  • Provides mathematical proof that data has not been altered

  • Enables public independent verification

  • Ensures auditability at scale

Such a combined structure implies:

Even if one layer is compromised, an independent layer must still be overcome.

This mirrors constitutional governance models where:

  • Separation of powers prevents abuse

  • Judicial review verifies legality

The two mechanisms operate in parallel rather than as substitutes.

IV. The Anchoring Role of Paper Ballots

STPvote emphasizes retaining paper ballots as the final legal anchor.

Within this framework:

  • The electronic system enhances transparency and efficiency

  • Paper ballots provide a tangible, legally grounded audit reference

This design may increase public confidence, particularly among communities that prefer physical ballot assurance, while also reinforcing the electronic verification mechanisms of E2E-V with a real-world fallback.

V. Future Direction: Integrating Structure and Cryptography

The future of electronic voting should not be framed as “institutional design versus mathematics,” but rather as:

Structural separation + cryptographic verification + physical audit backup.

STPvote does not seek to replace E2E-V.
Instead, it aims to provide a structural governance layer that can complement cryptographic verification systems.

E2E-V answers the question:
“How do we prove the result is correct?”

STPvote addresses a different question:
“How do we prevent any single authority from controlling the system in the first place?”

Together, these approaches may contribute to the development of next-generation high-trust election architectures.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

White Paper: Separation of Three Powers Electronic Voting System (STPvote)

  Chapter 1: Introduction — The Trust Deficit in a Democratic Crisis In recent years, elections in countries including the United States, Brazil, and across Europe have triggered widespread controversy. The core concerns can be summarized in two questions: • Are voting systems vulnerable to manipulation or hacking? • Are the results truly fair, transparent, and verifiable? Traditional paper-based voting offers a degree of traceability, but it faces significant limitations in efficiency, cost, and logistical feasibility—particularly during pandemics. Meanwhile, current electronic voting systems, despite their convenience, have provoked a deeper crisis of trust. Citizens and experts alike worry about vulnerabilities to hacking, insider manipulation, and the opacity of vote data. In this context, building an electronic voting system that is both efficient and universally trusted has become an urgent technical and political imperative. The Separation of Three Powers Electro...
Read more

STPvote: Revolutionizing Democratic Elections with Separation of Three-Power

Image
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: Regist...
Read more

美国联邦选举电子投票制度框架与实施方案

基于“登记—传输—计算”三权分立原则 作者：Bob Li 一、总体原则 本方案提出一种美国联邦大选的电子投票制度框架，核心思想是建立 登记（Registration） 、 传输（Transmission） 、**计算（Computation）**三权分立的架构，实现三个基本目标： 公正性 ：保证投票过程和计票结果公开、公平、可验证 安全性 ：通过分布式与独立服务器结构，有效抵御黑客攻击 易用性 ：为选民提供简单高效、现场与远程兼容的投票体验 这可能是保障美国大选公正性的 唯一可行制度框架 。 二、为什么选择电子投票 很多人一听到“电子投票”就直接否定，认为它“不安全”或“不公正”。事实上，这是一种误解： 减少人工错误 ：电子投票可以最大限度降低人工计票失误 降低操纵空间 ：减少从投票到计票的中间环节，降低人为干预 证据可追溯 ：所有投票数据、行为记录均留痕，合法与非法行为都可溯源 换句话说，电子投票不但 更高效 ，还 更可验证 。 三、安全与防作弊机制 1. 防黑客攻击 各市政府服务器与联邦电子投票服务器分离 黑客必须同时突破多层服务器，攻击难度极高 每一次入侵尝试都会被记录，留下取证依据 美国国会可制定专门刑法，对干扰大选的黑客实施重罪 2. 防止参选人作弊 所有参选人、媒体、研究机构从同一API获取 相同投票数据 各方可独立计算并相互交叉验证 透明的数据流动减少了单点操纵的可能性 四、三权分立的制度架构 1. 市政府网站： 登记权 审核并登记选民基本资料：姓名、性别、出生日期、保密问题、邮箱等 公开辖区总居住人数、登记选民人数、预计现场与邮寄投票人数 所有登记信息 只保存在市政府服务器 ，不上传至电子投票系统 2. STPvote电子投票网站： 传输权 负责发放 Voting Pass （投票凭证） 提供API接口，将投票信息实时传输至各方服务器 不保存、不计算任何投票结果 ，仅承担数据中转职责 3. 参选人及独立机构服务器： 计算权 各候选人、媒体、研究机构独立建立服务器 通过API实时接收投票数据 独立计算选票，并相互验证，防止任何单方操纵 五、投票流程设计 （1）登记阶段 市政府通过API接口从电子投票网站...
Read more