Journal of Critical Reviews

ISSN- 2394-5125 Vol 7, Issue 3, 2020

Review Article

BLOCK CHAIN TECHNOLOGY FOR ELECTRONIC VOTING

ONG KANG YI1, DEBASHISH DAS2*
1Asia Pacific University of Technology & Innovation (APU). [email protected]
2Asia Pacific University of Technology & Innovation (APU). [email protected]

Received: 20.11.2019 Revised: 23.12.2019 Accepted: 25.01.2020

Abstract
Election is a way to choose the representatives through a fairness, integrity, and democratic rules. During the election, the voting system
allows authorized voters to cast their vote for candidates. In essence, the voting system can directly influence several aspects that are
political science, social science, and economics. Thus, the concept of the voting system must respond and rigorously considered before
the election is held. The voting system begins evolving from paper voting, then E-voting and the latest will be I-voting. Concisely, E-voting
is simply an electronic system, while I-voting is nothing but remote E-voting (internet accessible). E-voting is the most adopted
worldwide and it is a tool that frequently represents democracy of the election. Therefore, most of the countries continue to research and
improve the E-voting process. Eventually, the current voting system is however far from what it should deliver. Blockchain technology
provides a decentralized architecture that distributes digital information synchronously among the P2P network without a central
database. Because of technology advancement, Blockchain has represented a standard technology that to the challenges like “perfect
online privacy” and Web 3.0 dApps. Hence, the study proposes Blockchain based Online Voting System (BOVS) to enhance the integrity,
optimize the voting process, produce consistent voting results, and strengthen the transparency of the voting system. Finally, the
research addressed the weaknesses of the current I-voting system and successfully applied Blockchain technology to resolve those
weaknesses.
Keywords: I-voting, E-voting, Blockchain Technology, Electronic Voting, P2P network, Central Database.

© 2019 by Advance Scientific Research. This is an open-access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.31838/jcr.07.03.22

INTRODUCTION
First and foremost, the ways of paper voting and E-voting because of physical access (evaluated by researchers and the
maintain one thing in common, which is voters need to travel to security community), which results in the voting process is not
the designated polling station to register their vote. The counting auditable [3]. While I-voting intended to resolve the E-voting
process of paper voting which completed manually or machine limitations. Nonetheless, the Internet vulnerability like DDoS has
(physical counting) after the voting process. In contrast, E-voting represented up until now a challenge that nearly impossible to
is synchronously counting when each vote was cast. The last overcome which made its most of the strength become
process will be the same to both that results by integrating all weaknesses [4].
counts of each candidate from the polling stations. Since 1999, To resolve I-voting limitations, blockchain technology is an
India has been one of the countries that have used EVMs for the irreplaceable existence. Nature of blockchain technology like an
election [1]. EVMs in India is definitely cost-effective compared incontrovertible ledger, immutable, and distributed [5]. Key
to the others E-voting. While I-voting allows voters to cast from features of blockchain technology are:
anywhere via browser (web application) or mobile application.
Since 2005, Estonia has been the country use I-voting for the • Eliminate the central database. P2P Network that each node
election [2]. The reason for using I-voting due to its strength in has the same blockchain (data) but distributed that
terms of accessibility and cost-effective that outplayed the others resulting in no single point of failure [6].
voting system. An election is not merely about the security but • When a new data or so-called block creating, the previous
verifiability, auditability, transparency, anonymity, affordability, block will be referenced by the new block that constructed
and consistency. Typically, the voting system should be able to an immutable chain which protects data from tampering
functions like: [6].
• Control over half of the nodes (51%) in the network which
• Authorized voters should be able to vote (equal opportunity made the system extremely secured (Greatest wins the
about accessibility and place). game.). It is impossible to launch DDoS to multiple nodes in
• Cost of the election should affordably. the network simultaneously [6].
• The voter can verify whether their vote has been counted,
and the result is tally throughout the voting process. Furthermore, Ethereum brings additional enhancements while
• The vote is immutable which disallow to tamper and remaining the blockchain functionalities are:
involved the third-party. • Allow the developer to program and customize blockchain
• The result should be the same as the numbers voted by the (i.e. smart contracts) [7].
authorized voters. • Least CPU resources cost in terms of performance [8].
• No others can refer to their vote than themselves.
• The votes should be able to audit after the election. Moreover, with blockchain technology, the decentralized
• The voting procedure should be able to verify by all architecture and its consensus algorithm bring the security level
participants. to the higher than the centralized architecture (client-server).
Therefore, current research aims to investigate the importance of
Therefore, except for E-voting accessibility, it has been until now, Blockchain technology for electronic voting to enhance the
not the ideal solution for democracy as it can be tempered

Journal of critical reviews 114

 BLOCK CHAIN TECHNOLOGY FOR ELECTRONIC VOTING

integrity, optimize the voting process, produce consistent voting • There is no threat about the hardware corruption that
results, and fortify the transparency of the voting system. could affect the process of the election.

MATERIALS AND METHODS E-voting

According to the recent research (Figure 2.1.3), there are 31
Paper Ballots countries experienced with E-voting system and 20 countries
The history of the voting system is exceptionally lengthy, start turned out to use EVMs. E-voting system has been widespread
from paper ballots, then E-voting and finally to I-voting. Paper and most used in Asia. In worldwide, India was the largest
ballots which represent the first voting system that introduced democracy. Privacy, integrity, and transparency of E-voting
by South Australia and Victoria since 1856, also known as systems have been a big concern that some of the countries
Australian ballot, or secret ballot [9]. turned out discontinued use it (i.e. France, Netherland).
EVM/DRE is the most used E-voting system in lots of the
democracy. EVM was first introduced by U.S since 1974.
(Historical Timeline - Voting Machines - ProCon.org, 2013).

Figure 2.1.1: Paper Ballots [10]

The idea of paper ballots was allowing voters to determine their

vote by the marking tools (i.e. pen, pencil) (Figure 2.1.1) and
counting process will be using hand-counted or an optical
scanner [10]. Even after many years, paper ballots still one of the
voting systems considered most “trust.” As shown in Figure 2.1.2, Figure 2.1.3: Status of E-voting Around the World [11]
“paper ballot with the optical scan” represent the highest
availability during 2012 U.S. presidential elections. Moreover, the EVM could be defined into three types which are dials,
researchers constantly compare the EVM with the paper ballots. touchscreens, and buttons (Figure 2.1.4) [10]. After all, they
possess one thing in common that stored the vote into CPU
memory. The idea is to combine the voting and counting process
which literally means record the vote when it was cast by the
voter. Moreover, to deliver verifiability and auditability, VVPAT
would be an add-on to some of the EVMs.

Figure 2.1.2: Availability Statistics in U.S. Presidential

Elections (1980 – 2012) [10]

Voting Process
• Voter travel to the designated polling station.
• Poll official verifying voter’s identity.
• Poll official issues a ballot paper to the voter. Figure 2.1.4 EVM/DRE [10]
• Voter moves to the place that for marking the paper.
• Voter fold paper. Voting Process
• The voter determines the vote by marking the paper. • Voter travel to the designated polling station.
• The voter unfolds the paper. • Poll official verifying voter’s identity.
• The voter places the paper into a box. • Voter moves to the place for cast vote.
• The voter cast vote press any one of the buttons that
Key advantages opposed to EVM represent the candidate on the EVM.
• Since the idea was primarily designed without using
electronic circuits, there is no risk been hijacked during Key advantages opposed to paper ballots
the election. • The voting process is simpler than paper ballots.
• Votes represent records in a physical format which got • Better productivity, since the vote was counted when
no likelihood about the votes lost. the voter pressed a button on the EVM. In contrast, the
• Invulnerability in terms of both hardware and software counting process of paper ballots started when the
security. For example, hackers possess nothing to do voting process was over.
with the paper ballots. • The cost of the paper ballots is higher than EVM which
including printing, paper, and so on (Pathak, 2018).

Journal of critical reviews 115

 BLOCK CHAIN TECHNOLOGY FOR ELECTRONIC VOTING

• There is no vote rejected due to the wrongly marked or disability, people who are out of the area, impatient, and others
invalid ballot paper. so-called absentee will be turn out to determine their vote.
• Easy for people who suffer from disabilities. Embrace affordability. No paper and EVM require which highly
increase the cost-effective (Elections Canada Online | A
Comparative Assessment of Electronic Voting, 2018).
I-voting With I-voting, the voter has been fully guided by the system UI to
Since 2000, U.S. has been the first ever country used I-voting prevent human error (i.e. incorrect choice, invalid vote). In paper
(Figure 2.3.1) [12]. Afterward, there are 14 countries used I- ballots, the voter would be committing mistakes when marking
voting system and turned out 10 countries willing to continue or the issued ballot paper was invalid. Moreover, while use EVM,
use in future [12]. The most significant countries: Estonia, the voter may press the wrong button.
Canada, France, and Switzerland [12]. However, Estonia Encourage youth generations to cast vote (comfortable with
represents the leading country that uses I-voting system entirely technology).
[12].
Key disadvantages
• It may good for just as an online voting system but not for
the “national.” There is no flawless security while using the
Internet, compare to the other types of the voting system, it
has the greatest and fatal security vulnerabilities.
• For a national election, once there is something so-called
defects or bugs happen, even it is a minor issue, that can
highly discourage voters to "believe" the system.
According to the foregoing facts and researches, even though I-
voting system has overcome limitations of the other types of the
voting system but security represent another story. Security
Figure 2.3.1: Online Voting [13] represents the most significant challenge for the I-voting system,
and there is research or implementation by some of the countries
As Figure 2.3.2 shows that there are 31 states in the U.S. used I- about the “architecture” that could possible to lower the
voting in recently 2018. I-voting can conduct in many ways like problems but turned out the unideal solution, that is one the
web platform, email, fax, and so on which refer to any remote- reasons that blockchain technology began followed by the public.
based electronic transmission, that is, the origin of the naming In this case, Blockchain represents the technology that most
"remote E-voting." In general, I-voting is the E-voting evolution. suitable to fulfill both "transparency" and “security,” thus, the
However, in fact, there are critical vulnerabilities like DDoS, and idea behind the proposed system.
virus infects voter PC, data tampering, spoofing, and so on been
concerned than E-voting has [14]. For what I-voting does is Blockchain
merely resolved cost, complexity and accessibility problems. Since 2009, the blockchain technology revolution has come
According to Dr. Vanessa Teague, “The purpose of an election is silently, Bitcoin which has been the first and one of the successful
not merely to select a winner, but to convince the loser, and their examples with the use of blockchain technology. Moreover, the
supporters, that they lost. Trust in the voting process is, author of Bitcoin was anonymous but leave a pseudonym called
therefore, an essential element to any voting system.” [15]. Even Satoshi Nakamoto (bitcoin white paper). According to the FT
though the vulnerabilities of the Internet are well-known, and Technology reporter, Sally Davies, “Bitcoin creates Blockchain,
there are some of the democracies remain the use of I-voting email creates the internet. A massive electronic system allows
system. Nonetheless, the transparency of the voting process the developer to develop applications with the Bitcoin, and
represents no difference to E-voting system, that is, there is no currency is just one.” [16]. Soon and later, in 2014, people
proof of data integrity. realized that different kind of businesses other than
cryptocurrency can use blockchain technology. Notwithstanding
in 2018 currently, however, some people thought both Bitcoin,
and blockchain is the same. The mission of blockchain technology
is to redefine the “trust” of the system which eliminates
middlemen like governments and corporations, that is, the next
generations architecture – decentralization [17]. With blockchain
technology, the “trust” will be on the system or so-called smart
code instead of middlemen who in charge both data privacy and
security.

Figure 2.3.2: I-voting 2018 in U.S. [14]

Voting Process
• Voter access the voting system through electronic
devices (i.e. desktop, laptop) that able to connect to the
Internet.
• The voter goes through the identity verification process
that instructed by the system.
• The voter determines the vote through the UI.

Key Advantages Opposed to EVM and Paper Ballots

Having the simplest voting process and best accessibility. The
voter can determine the vote at anywhere and anytime with only
a few clicks (Elections Canada Online | A Comparative
Assessment of Electronic Voting, 2018). Moreover, apart from Figure 2.4.1: Blockchain Capability [18]

Journal of critical reviews 116

 BLOCK CHAIN TECHNOLOGY FOR ELECTRONIC VOTING

Blockchain technology uses a consensus algorithm so-called PoW

Therefore, blockchain technology capabilities are what the I- throughout the process. The longest chain will always be
voting system inevitably requires transparency, immutability, considered as uniqueness and trueness in the P2P Network. PoW
and so on (Figure 2.4.1). Currently, different types of blockchain will detect vote tampering and rejected by other nodes in the P2P
been identified, several consensus algorithms (i.e. PoW, PoS), and Network.
latest innovation so-called “smart contracts.”
Consensus
By definition, a consensus represents an agreement in a party or
group that been reached through a dynamic way [20]. One of the
standard blockchain consensus algorithm – PoW which invented
by the Bitcoin’s author, Satoshi Nakamoto [20].

Figure 2.4.2: Centralization vs. Decentralization Architecture

[19]
Figure 2.4.1.1: Block Conflict [19]
As Figure 2.4.1 explained that centralization architecture’s server
possesses the full power while decentralization architecture’s Assume that few voters cast their vote simultaneously, while the
clients possess the full power. Technically, blockchain technology candidate blockchain is synchronously distributed to all nodes in
represents a P2P network, each peer with a distributed database, the P2P Network (Figure 2.4.1.1). Considered all vote possesses
all nodes maintaining the equivalent "level" in the network. This various data (i.e. voter’s information), which will be cause votes
further confirms blockchain technology is the closest to inconsistency.
democracy.

Figure 2.4.1.2: Lucky Block [19]

Over here is the consensus mechanism “longest chain rule” enter

to resolve the conflict. This mechanism will select the “first valid”
vote to append at the end of the candidate blockchain (Figure
2.4.1.2).
Figure 2.4.2: Difference Between dApps and Centralized
Apps[19]

As Figure 2.4.2 shows the basic comparison between dApps and

centralized apps. In the P2P Network, blockchains will be
synchronously distributed to all nodes that make sure they hold
the same copy.

Figure 2.4.1.3: Longest Chain [19]

After that, the selected candidate chain become the longest chain
as displayed in Figure 2.4.1.3 and the rest of the vote will
continue to append to this candidate chain which resulting in the
votes consistency.

Types of Blockchain
Due to the vast and various types of application (i.e. P2P trading,
P2P freelancing), which results in various types of blockchain
Figure 2.4.3: Cryptography Block [6]
been created. The primary reason behind the scene that causes
by different properties of the blockchain. One of the examples is
The blockchain is a data structure that allows adding operation
the Smart Contracts, a brand-new programmable transaction
but not update and delete operations. As Figure 2.4.3 shows the
that offered by the Ethereum. Afterward, there are private
new vote appended to the end of the candidate chain and earlier
vote will remain the reference (hash key) to the new vote.

Journal of critical reviews 117

 BLOCK CHAIN TECHNOLOGY FOR ELECTRONIC VOTING

institutions like banks discovered the DLT of the blockchain, a

Permissioned Blockchain emerged.

Figure 2.4.3.1: Traditional Contracts in Trading [23]

Figure 2.4.3.1 illustrates how the traditional contracts work in

trading. According to the general E-voting process discussed in
Figure 2.4.2.1: Types of Blockchain [21] section 2.2, the poll official act as middlemen that just for doing
the verification and give authorize to the voter to determine their
Figure 2.4.2.1 shows that there are various types of the vote. With traditional contracts, the process will remain long
blockchain. Moreover, there is the various mode in the voting while going through the third-party.
process as following:
• Public Permissionless Blockchain. Open public to cast and
verify the vote, and view results without any permission
(FFA).
• Public Permissioned Blockchain. Limit to eligible voters to
cast and verify the vote, and view results.
The proposed system will be using Public Permissioned
Blockchain which is the best fit for the scenario as follows:
• The eligible voter can cast and verify their vote, inspect
the results after the election is over. Figure 2.4.3.2: Smart Contracts in Trading [23]
• The organizer can create a poll/election that allows the
eligible voter to take part and view the results In contrast, figure 2.4.3.2 illustrates how smart contracts
throughout the process. function in trading. The steps for the proposed system as:
• Candidates’ blockchain was set up by the organizer.
Smart Contracts • A voter who wants to cast vote to one of the candidates.
By definition, a smart contract completely represents a set of • Smart contracts verify voter’s identity, “if an eligible
rules or conditions that process on top of a blockchain that voter (i.e. identity) to cast vote to that candidate, add
allows the “eligible party” to be involved. In general, smart one vote to that candidate blockchain.”
contracts been used to transparently exchange things like • The candidate gains the vote.
property, money, and so on [22]. Moreover, the smart contract is With smart contracts, the voting process was extremely
capable to execute, verify, and prevent data tampering in real- straightforward that automatically verify the voter with certain
time [23]. conditions without the middleman.

Figure 2.4.3.3: Use Case of Smart Contracts [24]

As Figure shown in 2.4.3.3, there are various types of smart short deadline, plus individual. Therefore, XP is completely fit for
contracts based on the complexity. Even though the proposed the current situation. Figure 2.4.4.1 displays the XP Methodology.
system represents a governance-like application but according to Briefly, XP been used for developing the massive system within
the uncertainties environment (i.e. time), the developer will an extremely limited environment (time) [25]. Moreover, RAD
apply the basic smart contract instead of DAO. and XP are relatively similar in comparison, but the critical part
is that RAD is not compatible with all system. One of the benefits
Methodology for Blockchain based Electronic Voting of XP which follows the most recommended practice to avoid
The better methodology for the proposed system would be XP unnecessary work and pitfall. XP methodology is compatible with
Methodology as the software development methodology. Since the proposed system, even it is an individual project. Therefore,
the proposed system been considered as complex and large,

Journal of critical reviews 118

 BLOCK CHAIN TECHNOLOGY FOR ELECTRONIC VOTING

“pair programming” will be unconducted during the life cycle B: Evaluation

which directly overcomes one of the XP’s weakness.

Figure 2.4.4.4: Questionnaire 3

Figure 2.4.4.1: XP methodology phases [26] Analysis of Questionnaire 3

According to this questionnaire, the researchers verified the
The chosen research method is the questionnaire for the current response of the proceeding findings was towards on paper
research. According to the characteristics of the proposed ballots method (Figure 2.4.4.4). Moreover, the researchers
system, the focus is on quantitative methods for questionnaires. require the assumption that most of the respondents are from
15 questions consist of 12 questions been used multiple- the local since the paper ballots method is frequently used in
choice/Likert scale (required to answer), and 3 open-ended Malaysia.
questions (optional) that been published to the online platform –
Google Form and spread through the Internet. Overall, the
questionnaires been prepared and developed successfully
throughout this research. Moreover, after justifying the objective
of each questionnaire which resulting to have a deeper
understanding of the proposed system and the needs of the
public. Therefore, questionnaires possess undeniable value for
the proposed system improvement. Throughout the data
collection process, there are 38 participants responded to the
questionnaires. The data analysis for the questionnaire is as:

A: Demographic

Figure 2.4.4.5: Questionnaire 4

Figure 2.4.4.2: Questionnaire 1

Figure 2.4.4.6: Questionnaire 5

Figure 2.4.4.3 Questionnaire 2

Analysis of Questionnaire 1 – 2
The researcher can distinguish the opinions of the respondents
based on gender and age, may differ in personality. According to
Figure 2.4.4.2 and 2.4.4.3, the researchers verified most of the
respondents are male and younger generations. In conclusion,
the researchers possess the confidence that the responses from
the rest of the questionnaires will be more flexible to analyze by
grouping into gender and age.
Figure 2.4.4.7: Questionnaire 6

Journal of critical reviews 119

 BLOCK CHAIN TECHNOLOGY FOR ELECTRONIC VOTING

Analysis of Questionnaire 4 – 6
The researchers verified most of the respondents were experts
(Figure 2.4.4.5), interested (Figure 2.4.4.6), and frequently
(Figure 2.4.4.7) use the voting system. In conclusion, the
researchers possess the confidence that considers the significant
likelihood of getting quality and honesty of response of the
proceeding findings.

Figure 2.4.4.10: Questionnaire 9

Analysis of Questionnaire 9
According to this questionnaire, the developer proves that the
highest complexity is paper ballots method; less complexity
would be the electronic voting system and least complexity could
be the online voting system.

Figure 2.4.4.8: Questionnaire 7

Analysis of Questionnaire 7
According to this questionnaire, the researchers conclude that all
types (Figure 2.4.4.4) of the voting system involved third-party
(Figure 2.4.4.8). Moreover, the researcher can prove that
whether the third-party represents the need that must or must
Figure 2.4.4.11: Questionnaire 10
not have which according to the responses from the rest of the
questionnaires.
Analysis of Questionnaire 10
In conclusion, the researchers justify that most of the
respondents are in doubt that their votes could be manipulated
or system error while using any voting system

Figure 2.4.4.9: Questionnaire 8

Analysis of Questionnaire 8
According to this questionnaire which analyses how or in what
cases voters would abandon their vote. First and foremost, the
researcher verified that most of the respondents due to the lack Figure 2.4.4.12: Questionnaire 11
of information regarding "when" or "where" to vote. Moreover,
the researchers justify that there is a need for notification Analysis of Questionnaire 11
features in the proposed system. In conclusion, the researchers verified that low vote integrity
Second, most of the respondents express that their vote doesn't among all the voting systems. Moreover, the researchers
matter to the results. Therefore, the researchers verified that the assumed that respondents may experience fraud which the vote
respondents had no “trust” their voting system. Third, there is no been changed unexpectedly when verifying (i.e. E-voting, I-
"disability" reason from respondents, the researchers assumed voting), or the voting system don’t even have a vote verify
that respondents may use the online voting system or no process (i.e. paper ballots).
participation from disability respondents.
Fourth, more than half of the respondents express that they are
busy at that time, the researchers assumed that respondents
were working or possessing class at that time.
Fifth, most of the respondents express that the voting place is too
far from them. The researchers justify that the respondents were
using paper ballots or electronic voting system and may face the
transportation issue or discourage to long traveling at that time.
Last but not least, “fraud” is the “other” options that raised by
one of the respondents. Even only 2.6% of all respondents, this
reason is very important to the proposed system in requirement Figure 2.4.4.13 Questionnaire 12
validation.

Journal of critical reviews 120

 BLOCK CHAIN TECHNOLOGY FOR ELECTRONIC VOTING

Analysis of Questionnaire 12 researchers considered the interface, and its functionalities

According to this questionnaire, the researchers justify all the would focus on the role of the user. Plus, the researchers thought
voting systems have exactly no privacy protection. In addition, that the functionalities should straight to the point which means
the researchers assumed that respondents may experience the more functionalities are not better in this case.
privacy leak while using any voting system.
Throughout the requirement validation process, the data from Abstract Architecture and System Design
the data collections process been analysed and encourage the Figure 2.5.1 shows the Blockchain based Online Voting System
researchers in justifying the requirements that users are (BOVS) consisting of five core components which are Ganache,
absolutely needed. Therefore, the researchers possess more MetaMask, Client Browser, Client Apps, API Server, and Email
confidence to make sure which functionalities should or should Services Provider.
not in the proposed system, such that the proposed system met
the users’ expectation. To reduce the system’s complexity, the

Figure 2.5.1: BOVS Abstract Architecture

Ganache will verify the data from the clients’ side via the smart
Client Browser, Client Apps, Meta Mask, and Ganache contract to determine the block creation. Furthermore, the client
The clients will access the application through the browser. application can fetch poll data from Ganache by forwarding the
Initially, the clients will require ensuring the MetaMask plugin is request over MetaMask. Also, the client application having the
installed and create/log-in a wallet. The clients will be required real-time event receiver that receives the notification from
to connect to the network used for the Ganache. The client Ganache’s event dispatcher which enables real-time features (i.e.
application will verify whether the MetaMask is installed in the poll status, vote results).
clients’ browser, and connected to the correct blockchain
network. The clients will get an error page if there are issues in RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
MetaMask and blockchain network. Otherwise, the clients will
see the client application. Interface Design
1. Request Magic Link Interface Design
Client Apps, API Server, and Email Services Provider Figure 3.1.1.1 presents the “Request Magic Link Interface Design”
The clients will request a magic link with their email to sign-in of the BOVS. Initially, the user will use the interface to log-in as
the client application. The API server will then request mail API the organizer or voter.
along with the generated magic link to the email services
provider (Gmail). Next, the email service provider will forward
the email to the clients. The API server will determine whether to
allow the clients to sign-in into the system by verifying the magic
link. Furthermore, the client application will send the

email request to the API server when poll successfully created

which to notify the invited clients. Moreover, the API server will
create schedule email notification for the start date and end date
of the poll. When the poll reached any one of the dates, the API
server will send the mail API to email services provider to notify
involved parties (i.e. voters, organizer).

ClientApps, MetaMask and Ganache Figure 3.1.1.1: Interface Design – Request Magic Link
The clients will use MetaMask to produce a transaction (i.e. vote, Interface
poll) in Ganache. MetaMask will confirm with the clients whether
to produce the transaction. Once the clients approve, the

Journal of critical reviews 121

 BLOCK CHAIN TECHNOLOGY FOR ELECTRONIC VOTING

2. Organizer
Dashboard
Figure 3.1.1.2 presents the “Organizer’s Dashboard” of the BOVS.
This is the first interface that the user will see after login
successfully as an organizer via the magic link.

Figure 3.1.1.4: Interface Design – Voter’s Dashboard

Organizer’s Poll
Figure 3.1.1.5 below presents the “Voter’s Poll” of the BOVS. This
is the interface that the voter will participate and vote the
Figure 3.1.1.2: Interface Design – Organizer’s Dashboard candidate/option.
Create Vote
Figure 3.1.1.3 presents the “Organizer’s Create Vote” of the BOVS.
This is the interface that the organizer will use for creating poll.

Figure 3.1.1.5: Interface Design – Organizer’s Poll

Voter’s Dashboard
Figure 3.1.1.3: Interface Design – Organizer’s Create Vote Figure 3.1.1.6 presents the “Voter’s Dashboard” of the BOVS. This
is the first interface that the user will see after login successfully
Poll as a voter via the magic link. The design is similar to the
Figure 3.1.1.4 presents the “Organizer’s Poll” of the BOVS. This is organizer’s dashboard, but the differences are the text of the
the interface that the organizer will observe the poll information switch role button that besides “LOGOUT” button and removed
and close the poll as needed. “Create Vote” button.

Figure 3.1.1.3: Interface Design – Organizer’s Poll

Figure 3.1.1.6: Interface Design – Voter’s Dashboard
Voter’s Dashboard
Figure 3.1.1.4 below presents the “Voter’s Dashboard” of the Voter’s Poll
BOVS. This is the first interface that the user will see after login Figure 3.1.1.7 presents the “Voter’s Poll” of the BOVS. This is the
successfully as a voter via the magic link. The design is similar to interface that the voter will participate and vote the
the organizer’s dashboard, but the differences are the text of the candidate/option.
switch role button that besides “LOGOUT” button and removed
“Create Vote” button.

Journal of critical reviews 122

 BLOCK CHAIN TECHNOLOGY FOR ELECTRONIC VOTING

We have suggested applying and experience various blockchain

consensus algorithms (i.e. PoS, DPoS) on the BOVS system to
justify the outcome. Until now the BOVS system has been running
on the testing environment. Suggestions from the senior
software engineer to improve the code quality with appropriate
design pattern and code comments practices. Additional
functionalities like the poll custom category, print vote results,
live chat and presentation view can be undertaken as future
enhancement. Lastly, the suggestion from another user is to use
the published BOVS system and share with his friends and family.
Therefore, we suggest deploying the client apps to the IPFS
(distributed web) and integrate and setup blockchain DNS (i.e.
Figure 3.1.1.7: Interface Design – Voter’s Poll namecoin) with IPFS. On top of that, deploy the smart contract to
the main Ethereum Network and deploy the Docker-based API
server to the cloud services (i.e. Digital Ocean).
CONCLUSION
To sufficiently develop an online voting system for the modern ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
industry is not a trivial task, as the whole research is towards on This paper is made possible through the help and support from
the technical part. We have proposed to apply the blockchain everyone. Especially, we would like to dedicate our
technology to the online voting system. Unluckily in real-world, acknowledgment of gratitude toward the significant
there is no such thing so-called best blockchain algorithm for all contributors. We would like to thank APU for most support and
the complex problems. According to the blockchain research, the encouragement. Furthermore, we would like to thank those who
proposed solution is precisely the best fit and recommended for participated for questionnaire as the data gathered could affect
the online voting system. All the blockchain algorithms whether the outcome of this study. We appreciate to their kindness of
are optimized or trade-offs between the security and extracting part of their time to answer the question with absolute
performance one, the primary aim is typically to establish the seriousness. Finally, we sincerely thank to our parents, family,
system extremely near to absolute safety. We have learned from and friends, who provide the advice and support. Finally, we
blockchain research that there may typically include potential would like to thank all the people for their participation, and
weaknesses no matter how to enforce the security of a system. kindness supports the research.
The potential security threats may occur in the various scenario
since the blockchain technology has different system architecture REFERENCES
from the centralized one. 1. Electronic Voting Machine: Here's all you wanted to know
about India's EVMs. Retrieved 22 8, 2018, from
The blockchain technology to I-voting needs Python (API server), https://www. indiatoday.in/india/story/all-you-need-to-
JavaScript and ES7 (client apps), and Solidity (smart contract) know-about-electronic-voting-machine-969155-2017-04-
programming languages for the system development. For 03. 2017.
development IDE, vim is selected to construct the Blockchain 2. i-Voting — e-Estonia. Retrieved 22 8, 2018, from https://e-
based Online Voting System (BOVS). Several standard third-party estonia.com/solutions/e-governance/i-voting/., 2018.
tools and APIs can be used, and open-source libraries like Nginx 3. Hari K. Prasad, J. Alex Halderman, Rop Gonggrijp, Scott
(web server), Docker (container platform), Gmail API (email Wolchok, Eric Wustrow, Arun Kankipati, Sai Krishna
notification), flask (micro web framework), JWT Sakhamuri, Vasavya Yagati. Security Analysis of India’s
(authentication), ReactJs (UX), ant design (UI), webpack (static Electronic Voting Machines. Retrieved 22 8, 2018, from
module bundler), node.js (JavaScript runtime) and yarn https://indiaevm.org/evm_tr2010-jul29.pdf., 2010.
(dependency management) can be applied as well. For 4. McGuinness, D. How a cyber attack transformed Estonia.
blockchain technology, we have used tools and APIs like web3.js Retrieved 22 8, 2018, from https://www.bbc.com/ news/
(Ethereum JavaScript API), Ganache (personal Ethereum 39655415., 2017.
blockchain), and MetaMask (browser plugin for Ethereum 5. Lafaille, C. What is Blockchain Technology? An Easy Guide
dApps). for Beginners Retrieved 22 8, 2018, from https://www.
investinblockchain.com/what-is-blockchain-technology/.,
Throughout the system validation, BOVS’s functionalities are
considered more successful, bug-free, and completed. We have 2018.
6. Nakamoto, S. Retrieved 22 8, 2018, from https://bitcoin.org
performed testing like unit testing and user acceptance testing
/bitcoin.pdf., 2008.
for the system. We have experienced the benefits from the
7. What is Ethereum? — Ethereum Homestead 0.1
system validation process. First, discovered schedule email not
documentation. Retrieved 22 8, 2018, from
working due to the process wait-time overdue. Therefore, we
http://www.ethdocs.org/ en/latest/introduction/what-is-
were able to resolve the issue by extending the process wait-
time (i.e. 90 seconds). Last and the most challenging issue, the ethereum.html., 2016.
smart contract transaction was rejected by the Ganache due to 8. Vogelsteller, F. ethereum/wiki. Retrieved 22 8, 2018, from
https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-Paper.,
the data size over the limit when generates a new block. The odd
2018.
part is no issues occur during smart contract compilation. Since
9. Britannica, T. E. Australian ballot | politics. Retrieved 22 8,
the Solidity programming language is completely new, the error
2018, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Australian-
message may not clear provided by the compiler. After analyzing
ballot., 2018.
the clues, we are able to resolve the issue by re-design the data
structure of the smart contract like parameters’ data type and 10. Voting Systems & Use: 1980-2012 - Voting Machines -
ProCon.org. Retrieved 22 8, 2018, from
length. In user acceptance testing, we have obtained precious
https://votingmachines.
advice and feedback from the testers established the system
procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000274#dre.,
more success to achieve the requirements. The experts and
2013.
normal users are extremely satisfied with the BOVS system in
11. Electronic Voting and Counting Around the World.
terms of user-friendliness, security, maintainability, speed,
meeting objectives, and reusability of code. Overall average Retrieved 22 8, 2018, from https://www.ndi.org/e-voting-
rating is above 90%. Therefore, BOVS system is meeting the guide/electronic-voting-and-counting-around-the-world.,
2018.
objectives and deliverables.

Journal of critical reviews 123

 BLOCK CHAIN TECHNOLOGY FOR ELECTRONIC VOTING

12. Internet Voting. Retrieved 22 8, 2018, from https://www.

ndi.org/e-voting-guide/internet-voting., 2018.
13. E-lected. Learning about the Du-Vote internet voting
system. Retrieved 26 8, 2018, from http://e-
lected.blogspot.com/2015/ 06/secure-du-vote-card-based-
internet.html., 2015.
14. Verified Voting. Retrieved 22 8, 2018, from https://www.
verifiedvoting.org., 2018.
15. Porup, J. Online voting is impossible to secure. So why are
some governments using it? Retrieved 22 8, 2018, from
https://www.csoonline.com/article/3269297/security/onl
ine-voting-is-impossible-to-secure-so-why-are-some-
governments-using-it.html., 2018.
16. Marr, B. A Very Brief History Of Blockchain Technology
Everyone Should Read. Retrieved 26 8, 2018, from
https://www.forbes.
com/sites/bernardmarr/2018/02/16/a-very-brief-history-
of-blockchain-technology-everyone-should-
read/#5a98f88f7bc4., 2018.
17. CEUR-WS.org - CEUR Workshop Proceedings (free, open-
access publishing, computer science/information
systems/information technology). (2017). Retrieved 26 8,
2018, from http://ceur-ws.org/
18. Onecoin. Retrieved 26 8, 2018, from
https://www.onecoinpk. com/blockchain-quotes., 2018.
19. Brave New Coin. Retrieved 22 8, 2018, from https://
bravenewcoin.com., 2018.
20. What Are Smart Contracts? A Beginner’s Guide to Smart
Contracts. (2018). Retrieved 26 8, 2018, from https://
blockgeeks.com/guides/smart-contracts/., 2018.
21. Blockchains & Distributed Ledger Technologies. Retrieved
22 8, 2018, from https://blockchainhub.net/blockchains-
and-distributed-ledger-technologies-in-general., 2018.
22. What Are Smart Contracts? A Beginner’s Guide to Smart
Contracts. Retrieved 26 8, 2018, from https://blockgeeks.
com/guides/smart-contracts/., 2018.
23. Smart Contracts. Retrieved 26 8, 2018, from https://
blockchainhub.net/smart-contracts/., 2018.
24. PwC. Retrieved 26 8, 2018, from https://www.pwc.com.,
2018.
25. Maniuk, I. Tests in Extreme Programming. Retrieved 22 8,
2018, from https://hygger.io/blog/tests-in-extreme-
programming., 2016.
26. When to use Extreme Programming (XP) | Blog | Mogital.
Retrieved 22 8, 2018, from
http://www.mogital.com/agile/when-to-use-extreme-
programming-xp., 2018.
27. Shrivastava, S., Jeyanthi, P.M. and Singh, S., 2020. Failure
prediction of Indian Banks using SMOTE, Lasso regression,
bagging and boosting. Cogent Economics & Finance, 8(1),
p.1729569.
28. Jadeja, Siddharth, Girish Pai, Krishnamurthy Bhat, and
Muddukrishna Badamane Sathyanarayana. "President’s
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief." Systematic Reviews in
Pharmacy 9.1 (2018), 6-9. Print. doi:10.5530/srp.2018.1.2
29. Nur Atik, Alfya Nandika, Putu Indra Cyntia Dewi, Erda
Avriyanti. "Molecular Mechanism of Aloe barbadensis Miller
as a Potential Herbal Medicine." Systematic Reviews in
Pharmacy 10.1 (2019), 118-125.
Print. doi:10.5530/srp.2019.1.20

Journal of critical reviews 124