Wombat voting

Wombat Voting is described as an end-to-end verifiable DRE voting system, and is being developed in Israel. Under this system, voters choose their candidate on a touch screen, and then receive two pieces of paper: one containing their vote (encrypted) that they can take home, the other containing their vote in plaintext which they place in a physical ballot box. Voters can later go home and use their receipt to check that their vote was correctly recorded. In addition, anyone can verify that the election was tallied correctly.

Infrastructure attack protection
Basic infrastructure is needed for voters to vote using an electronic touch-screen system. The power must be on, and the equipment must work flawlessly.

Outsider hacking protection
From the FAQ: "the integrity of the system is always preserved... consider the unlikely, worst-case scenario where a hacker gets full control of both the software and all the secret keys of the system. Even in this case, the system guarantees that if the hacker tries to change the posted votes or the tallied result, then auditors would detect the attempt and reveal the forgery. Thus, if the elections pass audit and are successfully verified by voters, then.... the election results are correct."

Malware and virus protection
Wombat's machines would still vulnerable to malware, if someone could break into the physical machines themselves. However, it counters this both because there is an auditable paper vote record and because there is end to end voter verification. Though either system isn't perfect by itself, this two pronged solution is probably the best around in the status quo.

Man in the middle attack protection
There's not really an equivalent except for tampering with the data from the machines after the voting period is over (or during the voting period). This is mitigated by the paper records and the auditing system.

Insider attack protection
If the wrong software is installed then when the "audit button" is pressed the machine might not be able to reveal the randomness used to encrypt the vote. The only way the election could be stolen is if an adversary controlled both the voting machines and the ballot box server. That would be problematic under any system.

Coercion resistance
Voters have no knowledge of the information that their code contains, except that it records the same value as the traditional paper ballot.

Ensuring one person, one vote
Polling place officials are entrusted with making sure voters only vote once.

Counting and tallying accuracy
It should record votes accurately both because the voter is given confirmation of who he or she is voting for and because there is a paper ballot record.

Voter anonymity
In the worst case scenario privacy can be breached. But this is unlikely to occur - no one can reveal someone's vote without knowing the secret private key which would be very hard for even an adversary to obtain.

Voter verifiability
Voters can verify that their vote was transmitted correctly from the voting machine to the ballot box server. Auditing is used to ensure that votes are cast correctly.

Immediate results protection
Having no intermediate results before the voting period ends is not very significant for a non-absentee voting system. Even if there aren't any practical restrictions to prevent obtaining intermediate results, straw polls in the status quo achieve the same end of producing intermediate results on election day. These are usually accurate,though not so in the 2004 election.

Ease of performing a recount
Wombat voting provides the tools necessary to perform a recount without getting voters to vote again. This is because there is an auditable paper record of votes.Depending on how the paper ballots are set up this could be very efficient - I.E. as efficient as optical scan voting.

Usability
The system seems to be easy to use. There are a few issues that would have to be addressed in its implementation, however (for example, elderly individuals might find it hard to read and use these touchscreen systems.) Regardless, the general public shouldn't have too much of a problem voting and verifying their votes with this system.