Many states changed equipment: The percentage of registered voters using electronic voting machines has more than doubled in the past four years while the percentage using punch cards has been cut in half.
But most of the promised federal equipment replacement money was not distributed until June, and the law gives states until 2006 to put new equipment in place. So equipment that was widely discredited in the 2000 election is still prevalent where accuracy could prove most important: in some of the states considered toss-ups between Bush and challenger John F. Kerry.
For example, 72 percent of Ohio's registered voters -- more than 5 million people -- must use punch cards to vote.
And while more people in Ohio will use punch cards ballots than any other state, eight other states projected to be close in the presidential election will also make use of the outdated technology. In Missouri, for instance, two-thirds will use punch-card ballots.
In Louisiana and Pennsylvania, almost half of voters will use even older technology: machines with mechanical levers. The outdated metal boxes, which the federal government is paying states to replace by 2006, are error-prone, easy to tamper with and break down frequently, experts said. Lever machines also will be widely used in such contested states as West Virginia, Arkansas and Virginia.
To some extent, states are keeping old technology because of fear that high-tech electronic voting machines billed as the panacea could make matters worse. Fifty million voters will use the machines, which resemble automatic banking terminals.
But in Ohio, election officials delayed deployment after a consultant found serious security flaws in the technology offered by four of the nation's top vendors. The study found that anyone with a security card and access to voting terminals made by Diebold Inc. could take control of the machines by typing a universal password of 1111.
Security consultants hired by Maryland officials reported earlier this year that they were able to hack into that state's electronic voting systems to corrupt vote counts and delete election results. Maryland is sticking with the system, with officials saying they have tightened security procedures.
Advocates of the electronic machines say security concerns must be weighed against statistics showing that the machines prevent voter mistakes that led to many ballots being canceled.
Critics, however, point to places such as Raleigh, N.C., where 294 votes were lost in 2002 because of computer glitches. The critics' biggest concern is that the machines offer no independent record for a recount, meaning that it is impossible to detect whether there has been tampering.
Those concerns led Nevada to debut a system last month that provides a backup paper record for each electronic vote.
Recounts are not a problem reserved to electronic voting machines.
Most states have no provision to automatically recount any type of ballots in a close election, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Some still allow partial recounts, while others insist they be done statewide. Some states have enacted detailed laws governing how and when to count some contested ballots, but at least one hotly contested state, Pennsylvania, does not have a uniform system.
A statewide recount there would require a candidate to petition in 67 county courts. Because the state has no set rule, each court would set its own. The result could be the very type of county-to-county discrepancies that led the U.S. Supreme Court to shut down the Florida recount.
