I think there is a lot of confusion about the issue of punch card ballots. I'm looking at this in basic logic, engineering, and rights terms, and am not denying ironies such as Davis having been elected by the same system as was challenged about the recall. (Well, someone has to challenge something for it to be dealt with, and apparently no one did before in CA.) It is often misrepresented as whether we should compensate someone for making a "mistake" in voting, but that isn't the primary issue anymore. (I say "anymore," because in the Florida 2000 election, some voters were confused by the layout.) The core issue is, the inherent physical unpredictability of the process. If you punch at a small perforated spot, it breaks fairly unpredictably. It may punch the chad all the way out, or it may be left hanging by 1,2, or 3 corners, or it may only be indented ("dimpled chad.") That is not a "mistake," like saying yes when you meant to say no.
This situation was a key issue of course in the 2000 elections, because many state or district rules said that the chad must be punched all the way out, or whatever number of corners, to count as a vote. The legitimate claim of unfairness is that this outcome can't be guaranteed, for even if you punch hard, random irregularities in the perforated border mean a high chance of hanging by corners. (You might as well say, "Throw a glass at the wall, so that it breaks into exactly four fragments.") People are told to pull out the chads, etc., but supposedly they are under time pressure, it takes some dexterity to pluck them off, etc. (This latter is the part of the issue I really don't have as much insight into.) In any case, voting shouldn't be like a carnival bean-bag throw for prizes. We don't need an explicit statement in the US Constitution about quality of voting procedures to see that reasonable quality is implied in the right to vote.
Neil Bates