We have one method that is just like the punch-cards except the device inks a mark on the card. It removes the possibility that a chad might hang. I'm sure it has its own unique ways of failing though (does it ever run out of ink? drop too much ink and cause an ambiguous smear? etc.).

About humans entering their own "marks", we had an interesting election in San Diego recently. Councilwoman Donna Frye ran an underdog, write-in campaign against Republican incumbent Mayor Dick Murphy.

When it started to look like she might win (and not before), the Republicans went to court and tried to get her candidacy invalidated. This was denied on the grounds that, if indeed their case had merit (never actually determined in court), they had waited till past the time they should have asserted their rights.

Then they moved to invalidate (and this is the part that ties in with your post) all write-in votes that spelled Donna's name correctly, but did not fill in the bubble to the left of her name. Sadly there is a conflict between state law (must fill in the bubble) and San Diego city law (need not). So there is some inherrent ambiguity when you insist that humans dictate the appearance of the used ballots. It leaves room for interpretation.

Personally, I think that if a voter goes to the trouble of writing the name of their choice, and spelling it correctly, their vote should be counted. Clearly, the voter's preference is not in doubt. Laws to the contrary should be changed. Those darn Republicans will win "by any means necessary"!.