Pro: Very low cost, accurate, easy to verify.
Con: Slow to tabulate.
In 2000: Used by 1.3 percent of U.S. voters, mostly in rural areas (2004 estimate: 0.6 percent).
Pro: Easy to tabulate by reading counters at the end of the voting day.
Con: Prone to mechanical failures; causes errors if voters do not pull levers all the way; machines no longer made; no paper backup of vote.
In 2000: Used by 17.8 percent of voters, including some in Ohio (2004 estimate: 12.8 percent).
Punch card ballot
Pro: Technology in common use, familiar since 1960s, low cost and simplicity.
Con: Causes "overvoting" errors; ballot layouts can confuse voters, causing mistakes; paper jams; inaccuracy from holes being incompletely punched, i.e. "hanging chads."
In 2000: Used by 34.4 percent of voters, including most of Ohio (2004 estimate: 18.6 percent).
Optical scan ballot
Pro: Straightforward, accurate scanning technology; technique familiar to voters from standardized tests taken in school.
Con: Voters must mark spaces in ballot carefully.
In 2000: Used by 27.5 percent of voters, including some in Ohio (2004 estimate: 32.2 percent).
Electronic touch screen
Pro: Easy to use and nearly foolproof for the voter, eliminating overvotes; technology familiar, similar to ATMs, lottery machines, etc.
Con: Usually no paper verification of vote; questions about system's security from internal fraud and external hackers.
In 2000: Used by 10.7 percent of voters, including most of Kentucky (2004 estimate: 28.9 percent)
Hot Corner: Nipping at the heels of the newsmakers
Voters have right to feel votes matter
Mixed results on CPS incentives
Looking into terrorism's face
More letters: Youth mental health care
More letters: The Pledge of Allegiance
Cost of new Medicare law overstated
Sometimes 'pork' can save a child's life
Killing Hamas leader shows why we're hated
Hateful speech by police must be curbed further
Counties under the gun
Just the FAQs on voting machines
Could an election fiasco happen in Ohio? No Votes For Chad
Voting system options