...and the lingering controversy over the 2004 outcome

I'm sorry, what controversy?

Why is this myth still being promulgated by the so-called main-stream media?

The systems I've seen have a form of paper receipt but they're not really adequate since they can't be used to reproduce the results of the election.

(1) Perfectly easy steps, like paper receipt backups, are not being taken to allow cross-checking of the electronic totals.

(2) Electronic machines are eminently hackable.

Given that we know (1) and (2), it's understandable how someone could think that the hackability of the machines is a feature, not a bug.

Just what we need.

This just shouldn’t be that hard.

Totally! This is why I've been arguing for years that we need to simply do away with elections. I am hoping that Bush will do the right thing and dissolve Congress sometime in late October and remain in office so we won't have to deal with this crap and so Bush can finish the mission.

Hand-marked, machine readable paper ballots have been around for decades, are easily understandable, and provide a backup plan in case there’s a problem with the machines. The worst possible system is one that’s constantly changing, so that neither the voters nor poll workers are familiar with the process.

Not only that but study after study has shown mark sense to be every bit as reliable as completely manual ballots and more reliable than the voting machines that dominated years ago (and in some places are still in use, I believe).

The rush to fully electronic voting was done in a panic after the Florida debacle in 2000. My own belief is that the problem then was Florida, not the machines.

The move to electronic voting, like other things done in haste, will be repented at leisure.

There is one genuinely good argument for the fully electronic voting machines: accessibility. For that reason I think that they should be available but I don't think they should be mandatory for all voting.