Troll makes a good point about the economics involved in supplying every precinct with new voting machines. Really close elections like this one are an anomaly -- perhaps it's been upsetting enough to all of us that we will support candidates who vote to allocate federal funds for this, perhaps not. But up to now it has been a state concern, which is handled on a local level. And the localities have a lot to spend their money on without buying new voting machines (in my community it seems we're always juggling new school expenditures, sewer projects, and other infrastructure improvements).

The Constitutional issue is one that should be examined. Again, Troll's point about people's diminishing attachment to their local communities is a good one. It also suggests, though, that the Constitutional allocation of federal vs. state responsibilities should perhaps be reexamined -- "states' rights" is kind of an anachronism these days with respect to a lot of issues that have become nationalized (or even globalized) in the last 200 years. This could be a good time for a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at establishing clear nationwide voting standards and procedures, at least for national elections. However, I wonder whether this has fatigued everyone so much that there won't be much public enthusiasm for continuing to hash over this issue.

As an aside, I heard over the weekend that both MIT and CalTech are planning to conduct a study of ways in which voting procedures and technology could be standardized nationwide -- in recognition of both the technology and the economics of the issue. If they can keep politics out of it and just deal with it as a technological and economic problem to be solved, maybe the techies will come up with a better mousetrap. (Or maybe they're just hoping to get their Republican and Democratic alumni into a bidding war?)