I am based in Stockholm, Sweden and my contact details are as follows:

Phone: +46-73-033 27 03
Twitter: @davidbismark
Facebook: (more private than professional)
Blog etc:


17 Responses to Contact

  1. Harold Fisher says:

    Hi there,
    Is there a “light” version that can be used for smaller electoral processes such as student elections?
    I am thinking of my university’s elections in 2011.
    Great innovation! It is high time Diebold got the boot.

    • David Bismark says:

      I think that the “light” version is actually the current version of the system. The research group is working on a new version which will meet the requirements of political elections while the current version was, in fact, developed specifically to run a student election.

      • w1sh says:

        To this end, is this openly available for anyone to download and implement?

        I’d be very interested in testing this whole system out with some friends who are interested in this stuff. 🙂

      • David Bismark says:

        The PrĂȘt Ă  Voter system has a website at

  2. Peter Ilijic says:

    Dear David,

    I like your idea. At the same time I can see some problems with it:
    I am from Central Europe and there is a lot of buying and selling of the votes happening every elections – especially with voters in difficult financial circumstances. Votes were sold for 5-10Eur last elections. The trick is simple – person who is in charge of buying votes sends one person to pick the ballot list, go behind the curtain and drop the empty envelope. Person brings blank ballot list out of the poll station. “Buyer” marks the ballot list and sends next person with the filled ballot list in. This marked list is put to the envelope and the blank list is brought out again. By my understanding this simple trick is possible with your card as well. On the other hand – it will be not necessary – as the person can collect money just by showing the vote results to the “buyer” on the computer. In that sense you are actually making it easier for the “buyer”. One can argue that selling own vote is somehow OK if the person sells it on voluntary basis. The different story is if you are under thread or pressure to give vote to someone involuntary.

    For the same reason I am against postal vote. Postal vote was introduced to make life easier and attract people to vote in the elections. Unfortunately people which are not interested in the elections will not even register for the postal vote. I believe that it is citizen’s duty to make this small effort and get to the poll station. On the other hand there are some cultural differences between people and lot of these postal votes are filled by the “head of the family” for everyone in the household taking this right away from them. Again – your voting ticket will make it possibly easier to do this.

    I understand that you are addressing the issue of counting of the votes in the poll stations and your system is addressing it nicely. Well done!

    • David Bismark says:

      The encrypted receipt does not reveal how you have voted and neither does verifying your vote, so it does not make it easier to buy votes.

      The first attack you describe is called “chain voting,” because a chain is formed of people casting someone else’s ballot form before providing the coercer with her own, blank ballot form. There are measures to combat this, it would for example be possible to write down the serial number of the ballot form at the time the voter is given the form and then check that she scans an encrypted vote using that particular ballot form later. In short, there are procedural means to combat chain voting.

      • Eduardo Vertiz says:

        Hello David,

        I saw your talk at TED online. Very interesting system.

        I am from Mexico, and as in most places elections are fraudulent. The selling of votes and chain voting practices are all prevasive here. I am wondering if the procedural means you mentioned above regarding using serial numbers could do away with these practices. Would the system be completely tamper proof…?

        Frankly I did not quite get how the system works completely, even after watching your TED talk twice and reading your description in this blog. But I trust you have it well figured out. You see our problem down here is that we don’t trust anyone, not suppossedly “ĂŻndependent” institutions, judges, let alone the politicias themselves, I would even go as far as to say that I personally would not even trust members of society, whoever they are. And the parties in power would probably not let anyone else verify the elections…

        How do you plan to bypass this barrier to entry? Are there currently any countries willing to try your system…?

        Many thanks!


      • David Bismark says:

        Interest in verifiable electronic voting is growing – but I am eager to get in touch with any and all election officials who want guidance and advice on where to start!

  3. Gregory B. Howard says:

    Wonderful work. A true benefit to humanity. More power to this great man. I hope he takes the next logical step which is to really democratize governance and have this tool extended to use throughout the candidates term of administration as an input advisory. So the constituency of the country can speak with a voice louder than special interest lobbyist. That way when an overwhelming majority of a votary says don’t go to war, Or, resign your post, it will be a clear and unmistakeable signal, unlike poles and demonstrations that can be manipulated as well as ignored. The key to this it seems may be to encrypt the referendum statement (opinion to not go to war as example) yet tie it back to the original voter so it becomes unlikely or difficult for large numbers of people to be coerced by pay or threats to improperly amass critically influential amounts of public opinion in an uncivilized direction to maintain dictatorships disguised as democracies. Thanks for your consideration.

  4. Tim McGarry says:

    Hi Dave,

    I like your idea for vote counting. I feel that there are just too many ways to cheat with our current voting machines here in the US. You seem to have a better way. I’d like to get more information on how it works as well as what your system would cost to set and operate.



    • David Bismark says:

      Unfortunately I don’t have a system to sell – but I would love to give all the guidance and help I can to election officials who are looking to go down the verifiable elections route. Please do get in touch!

  5. Dear David,

    Simply brilliant. Congratulations on a history-changing innovation. I am wondering if the system has been (a) peer reviewed and (b) used previously on large-scale political elections. I live in a country that has just undergone a revolution and is transitioning to democracy, and I am charged with making a case for using electronic voting and recommending particular systems for use in upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections.


    • David Bismark says:

      The PrĂȘt Ă  Voter system, and other verifiable electronic voting systems, have been published and peer reviewed for the past 10-12 years and in my opinion the field has only come into maturity during the past few years. Feel free to contact me to discuss further, I’m available to give guidance!

  6. Matias Gamarra says:

    Being a Software Engineer I really liked your idea… really.
    Do you provide this as a software product or you just envision a process to do a transparent election?

    • David Bismark says:

      I come from the academic research community and we publish our ideas – we are all about sharing. I am incredibly passionate about making elections transparent and verifiable and I would love to talk to anyone who is looking to use a verifiable system – but I am not selling a product.

  7. Jignashu says:

    Dear David,

    Your innovation is impressing and appreciative but I believe it has to be generalized on my issues like financial considerations and reforms required for such voting method, people education in illiterate population settings, monitoring the after-vote channels (people involved in managing such e-votes).
    I think these innovation will not be fruitful on larger scale.

    • David Bismark says:

      There is certainly a lot of work that has to go into user-testing these systems and to educate voters on what it means to verify your vote and so forth. But it helps that you don’t have to learn a whole new way of voting – you just vote like you always have. The PrĂȘt Ă  Voter system is specifically set up to mimic the way people vote in the United Kingdom.

Leave a Reply to Tim McGarry Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: