Question Number Fourteen: Given the amount of concerns over inaccurate vote counts, the discrepancy of polling equipment, voting machine malfunctions, and allegations of potential voter fraud, how confident are you of our system of counting votes for the Nov. 2 election?

Not very. For many of us, the deeper we sunk into this administration, the more the 2000 election became a source of pain and deep regret. Personally, I was and still am, disgusted at how the Democrats let it slip through their hands because they were trying to be "grown up" about it.

Now when we look back, it is so clear that the election was stolen by a small group of Republican insiders, a news network named after a small animal hunted in England, and a Supreme Court determined to make George W. Bush the next president, integrity and truth notwithstanding.

But that was not the worst part. The true shame was when we all just accepted the whole swindle. Not again. The Democratic Party is very different now. There is no way we would allow such shenanigans again (so I tell myself). Plus this is 2004, and we have progressed. We have moved on, and in the true spirit of America, we have made improvements to the system.

Now we have computerized voting. Computers are always good, aren't they? They never lie and are completely safe against tampering, aren't they? And they are better because they leave no trace, no paper trail. So much kinder to trees, because then there will be no recount. We just throw those votes out if there is a dispute. Much better. And we have that priceless quote from Walden W. O'Dell, the chairman and chief executive of Diebold Inc. (the company that manufactures the new voting machines). He sent an invitation to a fund-raising party last August that said, "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year." It's not surprising to hear another fat cat coming out in support of Bush, but it does make me wonder who pushed for computerized voting. I never remember much of a public outcry for more computers. Sometimes the permanence of paper is worth the time and trees - that is, if the votes are counted.

I know that it probably sounds like I am setting up a worst-case scenario so that if there is foul play, I can lay it at the feet of the Republicans. Sort of, but not really. I think there is a bigger issue at play in this election, an issue Americans noticed for the first time in 2000: Our votes are not equal.

Americans finally know what the Electoral College is and how it works. And, like many Americans, I am not terribly impressed. In 2004, we are seeing how this system can distort an election campaign. As a Pennsylvanian, I have been inordinately courted by these candidates. It's not even a big deal anymore if a candidate comes to my neighborhood. That does not seem fair. I can understand the feelings of Democrats in Nebraska (where my parents live) or Republicans in California (where a friend of mine lives). Simply put, because their states are firmly in one electoral heap or another, their votes do not count as much as mine, which I will cast in a closely contested, crucial battleground state. I wonder whether my compatriots in Alabama feel this discrepancy, even if they support Bush.

Oddly, that is the whole point of the Electoral College: to make sure that smaller states get a little lift. But the whole thing seems to have outworn its usefulness and become distorted. In fact, electoral votes are working against the smaller states, because the candidates are not wasting time on them. They are not worth the trip. Why should Pennsylvania or Florida or Ohio or even New Hampshire determine the next president? In this age of mass communication, especially the Internet(s), this concern for the smaller states is not as much of an issue.

And there is something fundamentally undemocratic about valuing some votes more than others. I think most Americans would agree, but until we put enough pressure on our government to reform this system, or at least have a public debate on the issue, nothing will be done. I think we can now be trusted with one person, one vote. There is a certain elegance and simplicity about counting up the votes and whoever wins, wins. Isn't that how they are doing it in Afghanistan? Does the government trust the people enough to let us speak? Certainly we are beyond the stereotype of the city mouse and country mouse. But unfortunately, the liberal rural vote has met the same fate as the conservative city vote.

In a race this close, we are bound to run into scandal. The lawsuits have already begun. The task of tallying the votes for a country this size is so monumental that it is impossible to avoid trouble. As a Democrat, I hope that if we see a scenario similar to the one in 2000, the liberals do not take the high ground and let themselves get steamrollered again. I guess with 4,000 lawyers (2,000 per party) guarding the polls in Florida, I should feel comforted.

In the face of these foreboding signs, I take comfort in an old saying from Tennessee: "Fool me once . . . " . . . how does it go again? . . . " . . . shame on . . ." . . . hmm . . . "shame on you . . ." . . . "If I fool me, you can't get fooled again" . . . wait a minute, it'll come to me . . . .