Abstract
A voting system should not merely report the outcome: it should also provide sufficient evidence to convince reasonable observers that the reported outcome is correct. Many deployed systems, notably paperless DRE machines still in use in US elections, fail certainly the second, and quite possibly the first of these requirements. Rivest and Wack proposed the principle of software independence (SI) as a guiding principle and requirement for voting systems. In essence, a voting system is SI if its reliance on software is “tamper-evident”, that is, if there is a way to detect that material changes were made to the software without inspecting that software. This important notion has so far been formulated only informally.
Here, we provide more formal mathematical definitions of SI. This exposes some subtleties and gaps in the original definition, among them: what elements of a system must be trusted for an election or system to be SI, how to formalize “detection” of a change to an election outcome, the fact that SI is with respect to a set of detection mechanisms (which must be legal and practical), the need to limit false alarms, and how SI applies when the social choice function is not deterministic.