[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: Write-in consolidation -- requirements

Colorado law requires listing only those who are qualified write ins and I believe Ca has the same requirement -  by precinct -  summary is not good enough because manual entry is done on precinct level.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Clark
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 1:54 PM
Subject: Write-in consolidation -- requirements

From: owner-rcr@gesn.com [mailto:owner-rcr@gesn.com]On Behalf Of Ken Clark
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 12:44 PM


See thread started by rodney subject "write-ins" started Fri 3/2/2001 8:31 AM.  Looks like we are going to have to have some kind of write-in reconciliation dialog at some point.  No date has been set for this, though. 


Quick support-list follow up to this.   Project managers for accounts should start thinking/inquiring about the requirements for write-in processing.  Both GEMS and VTS before it have limped along without doing much in the way of write-in processing.  This either implies that there are not huge demand for write-in reporting, or accounts are doing the reporting on their own in some way. 


We need to know, in detail, how accounts currently process write-ins, and what the requirements are for reporting are.  For example, is it necessary in all or some accounts to report write-ins at the precinct level, or are summary reports sufficient?  Are the reporting requirements different for the losers, or are all write-ins treated equally?  There are many other details.  Obviously the requirements are going to vary widely by region. 


I had posted a request in the previous write-in thread on the details of how write-ins are to be processed.  There wasn't any response.  There probably won't be a lot of code written without one.