## 2 Related Work
Since no implementation is shown, there are also no performance metrics for the proposal. _On-Chain Voting schemes_. E-voting schemes that utilize the blockchain for the conduction of the voting process require more resources, but allow for a more open, transparent voting process. In [12; 13; 15; 22; 23], the election process logic exists entirely on-chain. In [13; 22], no encryption is used to protect voter identities. In addition, the Rinkeby Network, a private but widely used blockchain, is used which poses privacy concerns. While [PERSON] et al. conducted performance testing on their scheme, they failed to show any scalability beyond four voters. In [12; 13; 15; 23], no performance testing or scalability is shown. Without performance testing, it is impossible to conclude if the proposed system is a feasible solution at any scale. In [15], some votes have the chance of going uncounted if they are cast at the same time. Ref. [13] relies on multiple nodes representing each voting district, which establishes a significantly high cost to scale. Ref. [12] allows the viewing of vote totals before casting a ballot, which could lead to voter manipulation and sway. _Blockchain as Vote Storage_. To combat the high resource cost of utilizing blockchain as a voting solution, some proposed schemes simply leverage a blockchain as a database to store votes, but these solutions rely on traditional ballot casting, which can lead to vote manipulation as well as other forms of voter fraud. Refs. [5] utilize blockchain to store votes or vote counts, but still rely on traditional polling centers for ballot casting. Refs. [5] rely on traditional paper ballots at polling centers. In addition, no individual votes are stored on the blockchain, only vote totals from each polling center, allowing for fraud and vote manipulation on the local level at polling centers. Ref. [5] only verifies polling locations, and not individual voters. This passes the reliance of voter verification to unreliable traditional methods. **The main advantages to our approach compared to the previous proposals are as follows:**  
* Our scheme hosts all aspects of the election on the blockchain, allowing for an entirely remote election to take place. This aspect allows for remote voters to still have their voice heard. Since our scheme aims to address the requirement for secure online voting beyond national presidential elections, a fully remote voting system is necessary. This is particularly relevant as numerous companies that wish to conduct internal elections or employee surveys have implemented a 'work-from-home' policy for their employees. Without the need for a polling center, geographically distributed voters who would otherwise be unable to attend an election can have their voices heard. * Our scheme utilizes the IBM Cloud infrastructure to host the latest version of the Hyperledger Fabric blockchain. By hosting the private blockchain in the cloud, managing and hosting elections requires less physical hardware and resources. In addition, the IBM cloud provides a scalable \"pay as you go\" platform, allowing elections of any size to be hosted by our scheme. * Our scheme has been implemented and tested, allowing for the collection of performance metrics. This implementation proves that the conceptual ideas proposed for our blockchain e-voting scheme are able to be put into action. These performance metrics showed us that our scheme, when hosted on the IBM Cloud with minimum required cost, is easily scalable up to 10,000 voters. In addition, these performance metrics reflect expected results from [33].