Last week's election marked the end of a four-decade era of lever machine voting in Allegheny County.

Yet with a Jan. 1 deadline looming, no one knows what will replace those machines, some of which have been in use since the 1960s.

They face a premature retirement because of a federal law that came out of the contested 2000 presidential election in Florida. The Help America Vote Act requires local governments across the country to buy new equipment by the end of the year or forfeit millions of dollars in aid.

	Online Chart: A look at some alternative types of voting machines

On Thursday, four companies will display the next generation of voting technology during an event at the Westin Convention Center Pittsburgh hotel. From 1 to 6 p.m., members of the public may try different machines and give their opinions to county officials.

At 5 p.m., County Council will hold a public hearing in the Gold Room of the county courthouse to discuss the issue.

The county will spend about $20 million next year to replace 2,800 lever machines; the federal government is likely to cover $12 million of the cost. New equipment needs to be in place by the May 17 primary.

County officials are not enthusiastic about the change.

"We're spending a lot of money, but I'm not sure what we're getting for it," Chief Executive Dan Onorato said last week.

Mr. Onorato sits on the county's board of elections along with council's two at-large members, Dave Fawcett and John DeFazio. They will choose the new machines.

Their choice is limited. The Pennsylvania Department of State has certified one company's machine. It uses a touch-screen system which displays one ballot question at a time on a computer monitor. Officials are likely to approve competing systems within the next few weeks.

Two other types also will be on display Thursday. One, a "full-face" machine, is larger and lets voters see the entire ballot at once, just as the lever machines do.

Another system resembles a standardized test. Voters fill in ovals on sheets of paper and election workers feed the sheets into a scanner.

Only the scanner leaves a paper trail, which voters and election officials can use to check results. Some other machines can be equipped with printers.

This is a major consideration for some government officials who are concerned about the reliability and security of computerized voting.

According to California-based Verified Voting, a no-profit organization, 25 states have enacted legislation which calls for a paper record of every vote.

Both houses of the Pennsylvania Legislature are considering similar legislation. But the law is unlikely to change here by the end of the year.

Mr. Onorato prefers machines with paper.

"Whatever we do, a paper trail is better for verification," he said.

Verified Voting's local representative, Richard King, has been encouraging Mr. Onorato and other county officials to take that route.

Mr. King, a psychologist, was outside a polling site in Squirrel Hill last week, giving out chocolates in honor of the final election with the 850-pound lever machines and alerting people about the imminent changes in how they vote.

"People were genuinely surprised and concerned," he said.

Mr. King argues that optical scanners are the best choice for the county because their fill-in-the-bubble paper sheets are an automatic back-up.

But Michael Shamos, a professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University who tests voting systems for the state, disagrees.

He argues that a thorough testing process should identify problem machines.

In October, the state denied certification for the UniLect Patriot, which experienced problems in Mercer County during last year's presidential election.

Mr. Shamos also questioned the security of optical ballots.

"[They] get handled by people," he said, "and are susceptible to manipulation."

In Beaver County, election officials encountered problems last week when a scanner broke down and some ballots stuck together, causing the counting process to drag on until 2:30 a.m. Write-in votes were recorded separately and still have to be counted.

Mr. King argues that the scanners are less expensive. But Mark Wolosik, manager of the county Elections Division, said any savings would be offset by two factors: the expense of the paper and the need to meet federal requirements for serving voters with disabilities.

Even if the county chooses optical scanners, Mr. Wolosik said, each precinct would need a touch-screen machine with an audio component to aid blind voters.

Before Thursday's public testing session, a group of disabled people will have two hours to try the machines.

Mr. Onorato said he had had some brief conversations with commissioners in nearby counties about coordinating purchases of electronic voting machines. He hopes the counties can find ways of reducing maintenance costs.

But he and council President Rich Fitzgerald, D-Squirrel Hill, are wary. Both would like more time from state and federal governments to consider their options.

"I don't think a lot of people understand what these machines are going to do," Mr. Fitzgerald said. "We've been put in a very uncomfortable position."

Mr. Wolosik, who has been with the Elections Division for 35 years, said the county had never had major problems with the lever machines.

"I think a lot of people will be sorry to see them go," he said.