One problem with the DRE electronic-ballot voting systems is lack of an adequate paper trail. The public-interest groups are urging citizens to be forewarned. Under the Help America Vote Act, funds can be spent by states and counties only on either DRE or optical-scan voting systems. Any states or counties rushing to implement new voting systems before the 2006 elections, therefore, will have to choose either DRE or op-scan. While optical scanning has had problems, at least an op-scan system can include a paper ballot, which can be recounted by hand.

The DRE voting machine, however, does not have a paper ballot. Any problem resulting from mistakes or manipulation, or even from electric power failure, cannot be checked with a hand recount. Furthermore, according to the voting technology specialists in U.S. Count Votes and similar associations, the DRE systems will "cost more to maintain, secure, and upgrade."

That means that federal grants to the states under the Help America Vote Act will be spent on repairing and restoring rather than on security for voter registration rolls, or information systems for detailed election results, or for developing a database of election rules, procedures, and laws to help voters, poll workers, and election officials.

SEND A LETTER—US Count Votes recommends that citizens around the nation write their county and state election officials, protesting adoption of DRE systems and calling for paper ballots that can be recounted by hand. A letter that individuals can print, fill in with a name and address, and mail is posted online here.

Organization of public interest groups around election reform has progressed substantially since the fall and is among the most hopeful signs following the November election.

The central project of US Count Votes is to put together a database into which information can be fed about elections in every state, so that any discrepancies can be detected immediately after the election. The project has already begun, using volunteer computer programmers to carry out the work. A public archive system will be set up to catalogue all the original data. There is also the Open Voting Consortium, mentioned above, "a non-profit organization dedicated to the development, maintenance, and delivery of open voting systems for use in public elections."

As has been noticed, the fewest problems with voting and vote tallying in 2004 occurred in precincts that still used the old-fashioned paper ballot, counted by hand. The guideline for safe and accountable voting and vote tabulation goes: vote in private; count votes in public.

One simple remedy for some states, especially states with large cities, would be simply to have smaller precincts. There is no reason why all inner-city precincts have to have overcrowded polling places, shifting and confusing changes of polls, or long lines at the polls owing to a lack of voting machines or a lack of election officials.

Starting well before the next election, any area with high population density and frequent vote problems should responsibly redraw their most crowded precincts: more people, more voting machines. A legal maximum for the ratio of population served per voting machine would help, and any responsive state government should be willing to help fund the requisite improvements. In a smaller precinct, cheating and manipulation would also be harder to get away with.

Network TV sportscaster Jim Lampley has commented online that "at 5 p.m. Eastern time on Election Day 2004, I checked the sportsbook odds in Las Vegas and via the offshore bookmakers to see the odds as of that moment on the Presidential election. John Kerry was a two-to-one favorite. You can look it up."

Lampley had more to say: "People who have lived in the sports world, as I have, bettors in particular, have a feel for what I am about to say about this: these people are extremely scientific in their assessments. These people understand which information to trust and which indicators to consult in determining where to place a dividing line to influence bets, and they are not in the business of being completely wrong. Oddsmakers consulted exit polling and knew what it meant and acknowledged in their oddsmaking at that moment that John Kerry was winning the election."

The sportscaster Lampley goes on to conclude that the votes, that November day, could not have been fairly and legally counted. He also criticizes media silence and passivity: "Is there any greater imperative than to reverse this crime and re-establish democracy in America?" he muses. "Why the mass silence? Let's go to work with the circumstantial evidence, begin to narrow from the outside in, and find some witnesses who will turn. That's how they cracked Watergate. This is bigger, and I never dreamed I would say that in my baby boomer lifetime."