How Americans select their elected leaders has been an evolving process since long before there were united states.

Changes, often prompted by a specific problem, have usually been the result of technological advances or political reforms designed to improve the voting process. As innovative solutions solve old problems, new ones emerge.

"No vote-counting method can ever be perfect, because no technology can ever be perfect -- and that's because technology is but the continuation of human activity by other means," Frederick Allen wrote in an American Heritage magazine article tracing the history of American voting systems.

Over time a pattern has emerged for the adoption of technological innovations in voting. A single inventor or company usually develops new voting technologies, which are then duplicated and enhanced by others. This can result in several companies manufacturing voting machines that are variations on the same idea. Voting machines, therefore, may differ drastically in terms of usability, complexity and price.

Historically, local governments have chosen the voting system that matches their community's particular needs and budget.

Some local leaders, such as Carson City, Nevada Clerk-Recorder Alan Glover, have praised this arrangement. Nevada has recently considered mandating a uniform statewide voting system, a move Glover opposes.

"Our unified opinion also still remains strong that each county be responsible for selecting the equipment and vendor that will best meet the needs of the local voters within their respective jurisdictions," Glover wrote to Nevada Secretary of State Dean Heller in November, the Associated Press reported.

Critics of the local-control, however, maintain that a non-uniform system results in problems.

In a 2001 paper on voting technology and reform, Congressional Quarterly Researcher reported that the highly publicized voting system problems in Florida and other states during the 2000 presidential election were the result of "a hodgepodge of under-budgeted and inconsistent local and state election systems and procedures."

The 2000 election has led to a renewed nationwide focus in the political and technological aspects of voting in the United States, including the passage of new federal laws to set standards for voting machines.

Early voting practices
Most contemporary American voters are accustomed to voting with some form of a ballot -- a card or sheet of paper that lists the names of candidates. Paper ballots were probably first used in ancient Rome, although the word 'ballot' itself comes from the Italian word for 'little ball'. In one form of early voting, Roman soldiers threw small balls or marbles into helmets that served as makeshift ballot boxes. Roman senators also used beans or colored balls to vote.

The ancient Athenians likewise used small clay balls or marbles for voting, placing a colored or marked ball in a designated container in order to cast vote for their chosen candidate.

Some early colonial Americans used different colored beans or kernels of corn to cast a secret vote for local officials. However, the secrecy of individual votes was not always a priority in the United States, where voting systems vary from one municipality to another.

In another form of early American voting, a citizen would stand in front of a bank of election clerks and call out his choices while the clerks tallied the vote. Party leaders and candidates for office could stand near the tallying clerks to campaign face to face with voters and to keep track of who voted for whom.

Reforms and innovations
By the mid-19th century, a desire for the ability to cast votes in secret led to widespread use of paper ballots. American voters were encouraged to simply write down their choices on a piece of paper, essentially creating their own ballot.

During this period political parties also began printing "tickets" listing all the party's candidates and the offices they sought. A voter could simply use the "ticket" as his ballot by dropping it in the ballot box. Voters could also "split" the ticket by crossing out party candidates and writing in their own choices.

Parties countered this "split ticket" voting by printing candidate names close together, leaving little space for a voter to write in another choice. In some cases, parties made the candidate names on ballots intentionally difficult to read, hoping vote counters would simply read the party name at the top of the ballot and award one vote to each of the party's candidates, regardless of changes a voter may have made.

Concern over accurate vote counting was one factor that led to the use of government-printed standardized ballots. Standardized ballots printed by election officials were first used in Australia in the mid-1800s. In 1889, New York became the first American state to use the "Australian"-style ballot for statewide elections. By the turn of the century the "Australian Ballot" had gained wide appeal in the United States.

However, vote-counting scandals and a desire to make the process more efficient eventually led to a general move away from paper ballots. Reformers who sought to change the system argued that corrupt officials could manipulate the counting procedure by stuffing ballot boxes or throwing out legitimately cast paper ballots. According to legend, Boss Tweed, the notoriously corrupt leader of New York City's Tammany Hall, once said that vote counters elected officials, not voters.

Jacob H. Myers, an inventor and maker of safes, claimed a new all-mechanical system would "protect mechanically the voter from rascaldom, and make the process of casting the ballot perfectly plain, simple and secret."

Mechanical lever vote-counting machines, like the one Myers invented, used a rotary device similar to a car's odometer, and eliminated the need for paper ballots. These machines kept a running tally of each vote. Myers and supporters who promoted the new system argued that once the counting process started, human hands could not easily influence the count.

Mechanical lever machines were first used in Rochester, New York in 1892. By the mid-20th century, most localities in the United States used the mechanical lever machines.

Mechanical vote-counting machines, however, had their own weaknesses. Like all things mechanical, they were vulnerable to internal breakdown. Moreover, if a machine broke down, it was not always clear when the malfunction occurred, causing uncertainty during the final vote count.

A person with enough technical know-how could also tamper with the machines and affect the tally. If an election's validity was questioned, lever machines left no record of an individual voter's intent, making a vote-by-vote recount impossible.

A blending of new and old technology in the 1960s led to a partial solution to these problems. A new type of ballot was printed on a standardized punch card that a computer could read, which sped up the process and purportedly decreased the possibility that human vote counters could tamper with results. The punch card voting system also left a record of individual voter intent, making a recount possible.

Punch card technology itself was first used to run complex machines and to do business tabulations. By the mid-20th century, when they were applied to voting, punch cards were already familiar to many Americans.

By the late 20th century, punch card voting systems were prevalent in the United States. Thirty-two states reportedly used punch card systems during the 2000 election. That close and contentious contest highlighted problems with punch card machines that are now well documented.

For example, if a voter using a punch card system does not cleanly push the "stylus," or punch mechanism, all the way through the card and remove the punched-out paper -- the infamous "chad" -- the automated counting machine may not correctly record the voter's intended choice.

As an alternative to punch cards, some localities have switched to a paper ballot system known as "optical scan," which uses a computer to read ballots that voters have marked with a pencil. These ballots are similar to standardized testing answer sheets most U.S. students have used.

In a July 2001 joint report the Caltech/MIT Voting Project recommend wide implementation of optical scan systems.

"We recommend replacing punch cards, lever machines, and older electronic machines with optical scanned ballot systems, or any electronic voting system proven to perform similarly well in extensive field tests."

Optical scan systems, however, also have some disadvantages. If voters do not use the correct writing instrument or do not fill in the ballot questions properly their votes may not be counted. As with punch card machines the automated counting mechanisms have jammed and malfunctioned.

Despite problems with punch cards, they remain more prevalent than optical scan systems.

The move toward electronic voting systems
The disputed 2000 presidential election led to a nationwide move toward electronic voting technology that would eliminate punch card machines. These Direct Recording Electronic machines, or DREs, have been both widely praised and criticized as many localities have begun the conversion from punch card to electronic voting systems.

The Help America Vote Act, a federal law passed in October 2002, is designed to encourage states and localities to adopt new technology that will replace punch card systems.

HAVA authorizes $3.9 billion for upgrading voting systems nationwide. The money will be transferred to state governments, which will then distribute it to localities. Under the law, states have until 2006 to meet HAVA standards.

Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, a cosponsor of HAVA, has said that, "punch card machines belong in the Smithsonian, not in a United States voting booth."

Advocates of new technology, including many election officials, praise DRE machines as an accurate and efficient solution to the problems with punch card systems. The machines have also increased accessibility for those with disabilities.

The American Association of People with Disabilities advocates the use of the new electronic technology, which it says will give disabled voters the ability to cast a secret ballot without assistance.

"This technology will allow millions of voters with disabilities to cast a secret and independent ballot-many of them doing so for the first time in their lives," the AAPD said in a statement supporting the use of DREs.

Critics of DRE systems have complained that, like the mechanical lever machines, the new systems may malfunction or be manipulated by a computer hacker without election officials' knowledge. Critics have also said that many electronic systems do not sufficiently record an individual voter's intentions because they leave no paper record of individual votes.

"If you look at the consequences for democracy, it's terrifying," David Dill, a Stanford University computer science professor told the Christian Science Monitor in November 2003. "If we had a way to make [computerized voting] safe, believe me, we would. There's no way to run a reliable election without a verifiable paper trail -- that's what these machines don't have."

Some touch-screen versions of DRE machines are under particularly close scrutiny. A nationwide debate is under way between the manufacturers of some touch screen machines and researchers who say the products are unreliable and can be tampered with. The manufacturers contend the technology is safe and other proponents have noted that apparent flaws in a particular product do not mean all electronic machines are unsafe for voting.

Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., has proposed an amendment to the Help America Vote Act that would federally mandate a verified "paper trail" of each voter's choices so that the record could be audited and making it possible to conduct a recount based on individual ballots.

Some state officials, like California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, have already moved to require a paper record function for all voting machines.

Other states are considering similar requirements. If HAVA remains as is, state and local governments will continue to bear the responsibility of sorting out the pros and cons of new voting technology and answering the question of whether to require a record of each voter's choices.

-- By Jason Manning and Jessica Moore, Online NewsHour

Figure 2: Ballot from the personal collection of Jim Dowling of Sac City, IA, photograph by Douglas W. Jones.