"I proudly entered to VOTE wearing my "IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY" shirt."

In most places, no one, including voters, is allowed into the polling place with any campaign material visible nor are they allowed to discuss politics in the polling place. What you were doing could be viewed as campaigning inside the boundary, which is not allowed.

Your judge was likely just doing his or her job, not discriminating against you. As a judge, I've had to do this several times, mostly to people whose views match mine. The integrity of the process is important.

True. I did err in completely oversimplifying the ominous task of observed manual counts -- it would be a pain. I'd still rather have things take longer, if it improves our chances of an accurate and verifiable vote, however (say 1% or more). Even if it means sequestering counters in a secured facility (observed and filmed, of course) for a week. Yes, I'd do that myself every two years; I think a substantial upgrade to our representative process would be worth it.

I also should have stayed away from the theoretical and concentrated on specifics for the woman in Ohio. ;) I do have the strongest respect for those working the polls every year (I'll be moving over election week this time). Fighting and whistle-blowing graft, intimidation, etc. is always a part of it. But electoral reform can make their jobs easier AND improve the process. We needn't pick one over the other.

Petronius, you make sense. I should do the math and have numbers if I advocate tedious manual counts. But the one thing I completely disagree with is paper vs. electronic in general.

"the less handling of the ballots or votes the fewer opportunities for manipulation or, more likely, gross mistakes"

I strongly believe that it is much easier to have a large-scale manipulation digitally. For example, I just changed the "composer" field of 10,000 song records in iTunes in a matter of seconds by pressing the return key once. Someone could hack my computer and do the same, and I may possibly not notice. But if someone broke into my house, and rearranged my CDs, I'd definitely notice. Physical changes are much more time consuming, and somewhat obvious as they require physical movement. Americans are quite familiar with physical security, and even the geekiest among us will recommend two-factor security for something that matters (one factor being a physical token). Personally, I can spot a bottom-dealt card in poker almost every time -- not so on a poker video game. In observed and filmed manual counts, one person could fix... uh, say 1800 an hour (1 every 2 seconds) votes? And go to jail if someone played back the video tape, or one of the party observers got suspicious? Not worth it, as the vote would be corrected anyway. In the Vegas analogy, there are plenty of dealers that are terrified of "the back room." Anyone with a brain doesn't cheat the house.

Even disregarding hacking from within the system or over a network: how many 'identities' could be stolen at a time by one person before laptops? Probably less than the last laptop thief nabbed in the blink of an eye. Today's news, for example, is that someone stole a computer that contained the personal information of 1.4 million Coloradans. A single theft netted 26 million records from the VA earlier this year. (hello?! encryption at least! yeesh.)

BTW, I'm not a cheerleader for the Red Team or Blue Team (or Green Team), as I think that has become nonsense. I'm an adult American citizen, and can make my own individual decisions thank-you-very-much. I'm trying to learn about this because I care very much for my country, and want to help her be strong again. If I (and believe me I'm not exactly brilliant) can find any flaws/exploitations, the bad guys can run circles around these systems.

More good questions, swokm. Here are some possible answers.

The Ars Technica piece said that manual recounts were prohibited in Florida. That is incorrect. There was a rule to that effect, but it was struck down back in 2004. There may be rules that would allow the running of optical ballots back through the scanner, but not allowing quibbles of the "hanging chad" type; IE Is that and X or a checkmark, or whatever?

The paper tape printout from the Sequioa machines is read by the voter through a window. After review the voter selects "Cast my ballot" and the tape rolls up into a sealed cassette. There is no printout for you to take back to the ward heeler to get your free pint of booze.

As to paper vs. electronic, I think the less handling of the ballots or votes the fewer opportunities for manipulation or, more likely, gross mistakes. You mention sorting the ballots into two piles. In my jurisdiction there are 85 names or choices on each ballot, including county and state officers, judges, local referenda and dog catcher, for all I remember. There are 600 registered voters in my precinct, about 300 of whom will actually show up. Our system is to do develop the totals at the precinct level and transmit them to Election Central. Either having us stay up all night or sending them to some counting house downtown will just increase the possibility for error or mischief. If we had Canadian style elections, with only three circles and a "Merci, eh!" at the bottom, we could still use paper.

Here's the thing: these problems have been going on for years, and nobody paid any attention until 2000. Butterfly ballots, hanging chads, under- and over-votes, etc. were not recent innovations. Out in the basements and firehouses the election workers have been fighting them. The counties are having to fix all these problems on their own, with no extra money. I do hope this debate will go farther than conspiracy-mongering to actually getting help to run the system better. Believe me, everybody, Dem, Repub, Green, county officials etc. want to remove ambiguity.

If you thought that there was very good chance that the -- how shall we put it -- less educated, less clever voters would accidentally vote for the Democratic candidate while trying to vote for their favorite Repub. Of course. No question about it. Absolutely.

And, I'm sure that if the Democrats take the House & Senate, just as old Ned Flanders would do, you are going to roll up your sleeves and give yourselves an audit. Just to make sure that everyone who voted Democratic really meant to and didn't get confused by the ballot.