This is a good
question. Standard operating
procedure is to either ignore the extra base precincts, or delete them from
the database if they are too hard to ignore. You can just
program the base precincts that matter onto the Card Encoder: If you think about it, what is to stop
you. That can be tricky though,
since the BS Create Card dialog doesn’t tell you which base precincts are with
which ballots. If you want them
gone, I suggest deleting them from the database.
I would really like
to have this improved structurally, since it comes up a lot, but I have never
been entirely happy with any of the potential solutions I have come up with.
We could pick the first base
precinct for each ballot in the report precinct, and display only that base
precinct only in the list. Ballot
Station knows that
it is the same ballot for multiple base precincts after all. But is that base precinct label really
what the poll-worker wants to see?
Maybe I don't understand the issue.
And I'm assuming there are NO splits in the reporting precinct.
While in most cases, once the consolidations
of base precincts occurs, people use the "reporting" precinct label.
That is only the way it is out west where they try to avoid "splits".
But we can't count on that across the board in all
states/counties. I would think that the "reporting precinct" could
be displayed (except where there are two ballot types in the precinct - in
which case you could indent the two base precincts in the BS - listing for
create voter card function. The minute that splits are allowed in the
precinct, what happens in your scenario? I think it is designed as is,
because you CAN'T assume that you won't have
workers are working from a voter registration list, and those lists are by
some kind of base precinct (by any other name). If we just show the first base
precinct, will they always be able to figure out what selection they should be
making, or will it mean that base precincts that are in their poll book are
Do any of us
know all the circumstances of how all VR systems handle their rosters?
Again, it boils down to splits. You just can't assume no
The other suggestion
that has been thrown around is to have a checkbox in GEMS to mark a base
precinct as “inactive”. All fine
and dandy, but clicking on the checkbox is exactly as easy as deleting it, so
the idea is not very inspiring.
But you at
least have an audit trail going with the "inactive" approach vs. deleting
As always, ideas on
“how it should work” are encouraged.
your favorite idea (adding another GEMS flag), whereby the admin person can
determine whether "base precincts" or "reporting precincts" are displayed on
the BS "create voter card" screen. The user's know whether they have
split precincts or not (in most cases they don't), and if they don't they can
select a reporting precinct approach (and have their VR roster match reporting
precinct or include it in the roster).
firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Mark S Earley
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 5:32
Subject: Programming Encoder w/ 1 ballot
style, multiple base pcts
When using a database that
has multiple Base Precincts associated with a Report Pct, create voter card
window in BS shows all of the bases even though they all have the same ballot
style. Is this expected behavior? Does one need to program all of these base
precincts into the Encoders for use at the polls or should they delete any
unnecessary Bases from a Master Database when being used on a less complex
422-2100 - office/fax
322-3226 - cell