The security of electronic voting To date, there are many controversies surrounding electronic voting in all its forms. During elections using electronic voting, votes are sometimes mysteriously deducted. Or even added. Bannet et al. [1] show that these machines can, with reasonable effort, be tampered with to do exactly what an adversary wants them to do. On the other hand, Clarkson et al. [2] has worked hard to create a system that attempts to defend against these attacks. However, they have some assumptions to make the system work. Voting machines have many advantages and flaws, however solutions are being developed to make them more secure. Electronic voting machines bring many benefits. First, they may be more secure than traditional paper-based methods, however, this will be discussed in paragraphs two and three. Secondly, electronic voting is cheaper than paper voting [2]. This is due to the fact that there is no need for as many staff at polling stations, or even as many polling stations. In addition to this you also save on the costs of counting all votes, since all votes are stored digitally and processed by computers. Clarkson et al. [2] estimate the cost of electronic voting to be around four cents, compared to around one to three dollars for paper voting. The third advantage is reliability. Computers are not only faster at counting votes, but they are also less prone to making mistakes. Fourth, a big plus is the possibility of remote voting. Instead of having to go to a polling station to cast your vote, you could do so via the Internet with your smartphone. It may also allow you to recast your vote, in case you change your mind or make a mistake. This could also increase...... half the card ......ion by allowing the voter to generate false keys, which will be accepted by the system, but will be discarded during tabulation. They also employ multiple strategies to combat virus-based attacks. During tabulation, servers are forced to generate a proof. If any of the other servers notice that any of the proofs are false, they will stop and force the others to stop. All results from these servers are also user-verifiable and any voter can verify whether their vote was actually sent. To protect against viruses in the client, they allow organizations to create their own version of the voting client, thus diversifying the code that potential hackers should exploit. Another solution to this, which [2] also notes, is for the code to be open source. This allows the community as a whole to test the code and present potential improvements.Conclusion