If you have two methods of voting. Say one method has a margin of error of 5% and the other 2%. And some areas have access to one method and other areas access to the other. Then you have a situation where the 3% of folks who must use the inferior method will have their vote thrown away. That bothers me. I don't see why it wouldn't bother you.

There IS no "5 percent method" and "2 percent method." The actual difference between the two methods that are farthest apart is less than a percent. I quoted a source. Your entire statement is based on made up numbers. If you call throwing facts into the mix "asserting it away," fine. But if you're going to pull numbers out of a hat, why not make them more dramatic? Like "punch card errors can approach thirty percent" or something?

In any case, the entire thing is totally in control of the voter. It's not like a certain percentage of cards suddenly bursts into flames in the ballot boxes. The voters screw up, plain and simple, and on something that an orangutan could manage.

This whole court thing is a reeking load of crap, and another example of Democrats using the courts to sneak around specific legislation.

I live in one of the "punch card counties." Our county election officials dropped their jaws to the floor when they heard this news. Nobody asked them for their input, and they're saying their methods have worked just fine, thank you very much.

Where does this stop? It is physically impossible to create an election system with a 100 percent reliability rate. Therefore, in ANY election SOMEBODY'S vote isn't going to count. Does this invalidate the entire concept of elections? Where does one draw the line?