Here's a nasty little secret about democracy: No one has yet invented a foolproof way to conduct an election. The goal is for every vote to count, but some ballots are spoiled or miscounted in even the most honest of tabulations. And, from the beginning of the republic, some people have been anxious to defraud whatever system was in place.

That's food for thought as primary season gets under way and a hotly contested national election looms in November. Thanks to Florida in 2000, just about every state has changed the way it conducts elections. The Help America Vote Act, passed by Congress in the wake of that debacle, made a number of requirements that led several states, including Utah, to begin using electronic touch-screen machines.

But now, a lot of states are finding problems with those machines and are scrambling to find something better before the voting begins. In California, Ohio and, ironically, Florida, official tests have found touch screens do not have adequate security. With a little know-how, testers were able to change vote totals or render machines inoperable. Colorado found similar problems and ditched its machines without any idea what to do next.

The Associated Press said Ohio and Colorado officials found that magnets or hand-held devices such as Treos could be used to corrupt data in the machines.

Some states are turning back to paper ballots, using optical scanners to tabulate results. But that's no perfect solution. As the AP reported, a test of scanners in Colorado found an error rate of one vote for every 100 cast. And, of course, punch-card ballots, used for decades here and elsewhere, led to the problems in Florida in 2000, which left the presidency in limbo until the U.S. Supreme Court intervened.

Utah's lieutenant governor's office, which is responsible for elections, is steadfastly defending its decision to contract with Diebold for the state's electronic voting system. We understand the pains the state took to select Diebold, but with the mounting evidence in other states, it would seem prudent to be less adamant about that choice. The state should allow the legislative auditor general's office to conduct an independent review of the system to ensure its adequacy.

Without a doubt, election integrity is vital to a democracy. Also without a doubt is the fact that people will try to compromise that integrity. Tests in other states have given those people a road map, or at least some creative ideas.

The fact remains that most examples of voter fraud in U.S. history have involved paper ballots. A return to that system is no guarantee of fairness. But it also is true that electronic voting remains largely unproven.

The wise course would be to conduct independent tests and other audits to make sure as many votes as possible actually count.