The 2000 election voting fiasco is bringing a well-needed change to the American voting process. Finally.

On Tuesday, Nevada voters cast electronic votes for a primary using a $9.3 million voting system that allowed them to use touch-screens to cast their ballot. The process was virtually problem free, unlike similar systems that have been used in other states. After 2000's unmitigated Florida disaster, high technology in the voting booth became imperative, even if rough around the edges.

Voters in Nevada used the best of both worlds Tuesday, casting ballots with an ATM-like machine that emits the paper trail needed in cases of tampering, election fraud or outright incompetence.

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., sponsored legislation that supports the use of touch-screens and printers because it allows voters to use a more efficient way of voting while leaving a paper trail. In the spirit of fair elections, we agree.

Apparently, no current voting system is completely problem-free. While the previous voting system was time tested, the events of 2000 have shown us that we need to move in a new direction.

Participants of the Michigan Democratic Caucus earlier this year were introduced to what we consider the ideal voting system - never leaving your home. Voters were permitted to cast votes via a secured Internet, which to any seasoned voter was comparable to being pampered. Internet voting is, and should be, the next step in our electoral process, but until that day - in, perhaps, 2008 - the Nevada voting system is one that we will support. Furthermore, any advance in the name of easier, secure voting will receive our full endorsement for merely enfranchising more voters.

Although there are a lot of negative things about the electronic voting system, we believe it will have only a positive effect on the voting process as we know it.