Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This research proposes a hybrid e-voting system integrating blockchain and polling station verification, highlighting improved security and legitimacy.
Ensuring secure, transparent, and legitimate elections has become increasingly critical in the digital era, especially with the growing reliance on electronic voting (e-voting) systems. However, conventional online voting mechanisms are still vulnerable to various forms of cyber threats, identity spoofing, and remote vote manipulation. This research proposes a hybrid e-voting system that integrates blockchain technology with physical polling station location verification to enhance the integrity of digital elections. The proposed system leverages the immutability and traceability of blockchain to record voting transactions securely, while geofencing and GPS-based verification are used to ensure that voters are physically present at authorized polling locations before casting their votes. The system architecture employs a private, permissioned blockchain network to maintain voter confidentiality and prevent unauthorized data access. Voters are authenticated through two-factor mechanisms and must be within the geofenced boundaries of designated polling stations. This approach not only addresses the challenges of voter identity validation but also minimizes the risk of vote buying and coercion, which are prevalent in remote voting setups. Simulation experiments conducted under various scenarios demonstrate that the hybrid model significantly improves vote accuracy, reduces attack surfaces, and ensures tamper-proof logging of election data. Compared to conventional online voting methods, the proposed system offers better resilience against fraud and technical manipulation. It is concluded that this hybrid model provides a promising and scalable foundation for secure national digital elections, particularly in countries aiming to modernize electoral processes while maintaining verifiability and public trust.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saleh et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: