Logo
ScienceStack
Table of Contents
Fetching ...
Sign In

Are Quantum Voting Protocols Practical?

Nitin Jha, Abhishek Parakh

TL;DR

Are Quantum Voting Protocols Practical? investigates whether quantum voting can deliver ballot secrecy and publicly verifiable tallies through quantum mechanics. It outlines core principles such as the no-cloning theorem, entanglement, and superposition, defines system roles and threat models, and categorizes protocols into entanglement-based with central tally, self-tallying, and authority-minimized implementations. It assesses real-world adoption by detailing implementation challenges—loss, noise, device imperfections, scalability, and coercion resistance—and concludes that near-term deployments are feasible only for small, well-controlled groups, with larger elections requiring advances in state distribution and device certification. The suggested path combines quantum tamper-evident distribution and anonymity with classical end-to-end practices and post-quantum authentication, outlining a pragmatic route toward hybrid quantum-classical election infrastructure.

Abstract

Quantum voting protocols aim to offer ballot secrecy and publicly verifiable tallies using physical guarantees from quantum mechanics, rather than relying solely on computational hardness. This article surveys whether such quantum voting protocols are practical. We begin by outlining core mathematical ideas such as the superposition principle, the no-cloning theorem, and quantum entanglement. We then define a common system and threat model, identifying key actors, trust assumptions, and security goals. Representative protocol families are reviewed, including entanglement-based schemes with central tallying, self-tallying designs that enable public verification, and authority-minimized approaches that certify untrusted devices through observable correlations. Finally, we evaluate implementation challenges, including loss, noise, device imperfections, scalability, and coercion resistance, and discuss realistic near-term deployment scenarios for small-scale elections.

Are Quantum Voting Protocols Practical?

TL;DR

Are Quantum Voting Protocols Practical? investigates whether quantum voting can deliver ballot secrecy and publicly verifiable tallies through quantum mechanics. It outlines core principles such as the no-cloning theorem, entanglement, and superposition, defines system roles and threat models, and categorizes protocols into entanglement-based with central tally, self-tallying, and authority-minimized implementations. It assesses real-world adoption by detailing implementation challenges—loss, noise, device imperfections, scalability, and coercion resistance—and concludes that near-term deployments are feasible only for small, well-controlled groups, with larger elections requiring advances in state distribution and device certification. The suggested path combines quantum tamper-evident distribution and anonymity with classical end-to-end practices and post-quantum authentication, outlining a pragmatic route toward hybrid quantum-classical election infrastructure.

Abstract

Quantum voting protocols aim to offer ballot secrecy and publicly verifiable tallies using physical guarantees from quantum mechanics, rather than relying solely on computational hardness. This article surveys whether such quantum voting protocols are practical. We begin by outlining core mathematical ideas such as the superposition principle, the no-cloning theorem, and quantum entanglement. We then define a common system and threat model, identifying key actors, trust assumptions, and security goals. Representative protocol families are reviewed, including entanglement-based schemes with central tallying, self-tallying designs that enable public verification, and authority-minimized approaches that certify untrusted devices through observable correlations. Finally, we evaluate implementation challenges, including loss, noise, device imperfections, scalability, and coercion resistance, and discuss realistic near-term deployment scenarios for small-scale elections.
Paper Structure (16 sections, 2 figures)

This paper contains 16 sections, 2 figures.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Quantum Basics for Voting
  3. System and Threat Models
  4. Different Actors
  5. Channels and randomness
  6. Evidence and checks
  7. Security properties
  8. Overview of Some of the Quantum Voting Protocols
  9. Entanglement-based and central tally
  10. Self-Tallying Protocols
  11. Authority-minimized variants with an un-trusted source
  12. Practical Implementation and Challenges
  13. Advantages and Disadvantages
  14. Advantages
  15. Disadvantages
  16. ...and 1 more sections

Figures (2)

  • Figure 2: Schematic diagram which shows the four steps for the quantum voting scheme that uses a central collector. Step I is where a registration authority gives certification to all voters. Step II is where the collector prepares and distributes the multipartite quantum states to the voters. Step III is when each voter applies a local unitary operation (i.e., rotation) to register their vote and send the states back to the collector. Step IV is the final step where the collector measures the quantum states and posts the tally result and other test statistics so it's verifiable.
  • Figure 3: Schematic diagram which shows the mechanism of the self-tallying quantum voting scheme. Step I is where a central source distributes quantum shares to each voter; In Step II, each voter performs a local unitary operation and obtains a small classical share upon measurement; Step III is where each voter sends their obtained classical share (i.e., vote value) to the bulletin board using an anonymous relay to avoid deanonymisation.