>>My voting precinct has used that type of ballot in the past, even with skipped holes between the candidates. You punch the ONE hole next to the arrow. Am I missing something here?
>
>Yeah, people were told that Gore would be the second one on the ballot. FWIW, I think that ballot has a terrible user interface. As one who's always voted on machines, I'm also fascinated by how many places seem to be using some kind of paper ballot and by the fact that, in this case, if you'd made a mistake, you were SOL. (Can someone who has voted with punch-out paper ballots tell us whether, in fact, you can get another if you screw up?)
>
>Tamar

Hello Tamar,

And yes, Gore was the second one on the ballot. That is not the same as the second hole, I don't think. Yes, perhaps the ballot could have been better. But, let's assume that the candidates were all stacked on the left. On a punch type ballot, if you are voting for the second choice, it is often times NOT the second hole down. They leave plenty of space to print the candidate's name, and that space is wider than the hole spacing. There is an arrow pointing to the EXACT hole that you are to punch.

My point is this...I have seen ballots like this for years. It has never been an issue before, and I think that it is odd that it has become one now.

Yes, you can get another ballot :)

As one who has always used some sort of paper ballot...I'm curious. How do the machines work? David Letterman was funny last night (FWIW, I'm not a regular watcher), describing himself as a voting maniac, flipping switches like crazy. He said he wasn't sure if he did it right. On a machine, don't you have even less of an opportunity to fix a mistake?