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

RE: Multi-page ballots and turnout percentages

Thanks for the input Ken.
I understand how this has always been set aside as a backburner issue. I like Rob's ingenuity. I have been working here since early June on trying to get the ballots down to one pagers. All 30 counties have been facing the problem.
The saving grace was that one of the amendments fell off the ballot, unfortunately after many weeks of effort by many people, so most counties ended up with one pagers . Still, there is no white space and the 18 inch ballots are packed full. The key problem is there were eleven (now 10) amendments, one amendment is in excess of 520 words, and some counties have spanish language requirements.
Most counties that do have 2 page ballots have the english/spanish translations, and the ballots are 18 inch, front, back, front, back.  I went so far as to suggest to the governing association of the SOEs here that they get part of the amendment text placed off ballot onto a separate sheet of paper, but it did not fly with the legislature.
See attached 2 page ballot from Osceola County. I did not lay this one out myself, but you can see the problem. Maybe the ability to do paper ballots in specific languages will help the situation.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-support@dieboldes.com [mailto:owner-support@dieboldes.com]On Behalf Of Ken
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 3:19 PM
To: support@dieboldes.com
Subject: RE: Multi-page ballots and turnout percentages

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-support@dieboldes.com [mailto:owner-support@dieboldes.com] On Behalf Of Mark S Earley
Friday, October 11, 2002 9:09 AM
To: Support
Subject: Multi-page ballots and turnout percentages


How have people handled Election Night Reporting in accounts with multi-page ballots? The Turnout percentages are misleading as everyone knows. What have others done or expect to do in this situation?


I’d like to hear from all interested parties on this.  Here are a few comments of my own.


Multi-card ballots have always been weak in many ways in GEMS.  You should avoid them at nearly all costs.  Have a look at the lengths Rob Chen went to avoid them in California – attached.


This has an interesting feedback loop however.  People avoid multi-card elections at all costs because GEMS multi-card support is weak.  That makes multi-card elections very rare.  Since multi-card elections are very rare, improving GEMS is always a low priority relative to common pressing problems.  So GEMS multu-card support remains weak.  Rinse, repeat.


I am considering advising the counties to turn off the Cards Cast feature, and keeping the Times, Totals, and Registered Voters options turned on. This will put the county-wide races near the beginning of the reports, giving an accurate appraisal of the numbers of voters. This will work well on the Summary Reports where the Times Voted for each race gives a percentage.


Right.  You have reinvented the standard operating procedure.  A jurisdiction-wide race will always give you the numbers they want.


The SOVC Report does not have a comparable percentage stat on it within the races. Most users are used to the SOVC showing the Turnout percentage in the third column, and turning this feature off will likely upset them and the reporters they serve.


Hmmm, indeed.  SOVC should show the percent as well.  I will create a new RCR to that effect and get this assigned.


One workaround is to export the precinct results, import into Excel, massage the formatting and use the times counted for countywide races as the turnout. For one county this will be manageable. For many counties and remote support, this will be problematic.


Tab is working on fixing the cards cast problem.


Mark Earley

850 422-2100 - office/fax

850 322-3226 – cell





Attachment: 15-1-NP-FB.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: 6-1-NP-FB.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document