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

RE: Feedback from Maryland

Steve et al:
I think that we need to consider the process of adopting product
improvements.  One customer's request for an upgrade may not substantiate
the upgrade.  We need to analyze the request, define the cost/benefit, and
determine if the upgrade will improve our product overall.

I've found that we have great discussion via e-mail.  My hope is that those
wise souls in product development will consider our suggestions, appreciate
the feedback in our discussions, and perform the appropriate analysis.

Call me on item 3, if you want more info.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-support@dieboldes.com [mailto:owner-support@dieboldes.com]On
Behalf Of Steve Knecht
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 1:44 PM
To: support@dieboldes.com
Subject: RE: Feedback from Maryland


Sounds like a great election and you've come away with many good ideas for
improving the product.  My only concern if you are wanting discussion from
this email or you are turning in RCR's for these items also.  Some

1. A single source or location for Party display would be beneficial.  I
don't think it's necessary to display party on instruction page, but summary
page is a good idea I think, although display should come from a single
source field.

2. I would not be a proponent for eliminating the instruction page myself.
I would like to see a section of Ballot Station memory that held
instructions seperate from the election memory, so that the instructions
could be loaded, edited, changed seperate from the election data however.

3. I don't understand the following: "c.  The Party designation has to be
changed in every district between the Primary and the General, leaving many
opportunities for failure.  Why not have one option that changes them all
automatically?" Could you elaborate?

4. Write-ins: sounds like a good RCR.

5. Election Summary Report by Pct: Is there some reason they couldn't use
the SOVC if they wanted an all pcts report?   On the other hand, I've
encountered this situation also, where we either have "all" or "one"
options.  We do need a way to print a range of pcts if people want the
Summary Report Format.  I think this would be a good RCR.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-support@dieboldes.com [mailto:owner-support@dieboldes.com]On
Behalf Of Sue Page
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 2:13 PM
To: Support
Subject: Feedback from Maryland

Maryland had a terrific election on November 5.  5100 units were implemented
in 500 precincts across 4 Counties.  Voter turnout was moderately heavy.
The R6 units were enthusiastically received by the voters.

Montgomery County resolved all of their process issues that caused delayed
openings and closings in the Primary.  They were 90% reporting by 10:00, and
completed the election at 11:40 (missing only 4 PC Cards).  In fact, the
10:00 news showed the "Diebold" Counties as 60% of the early results, with
those Counties consisting of only 40% of the voters.

We're working on a detailed report, which will be shared in the future.  For
now, however, I wanted to capture the following issues/comments/suggestions:

1.  Party Designation on the Instructions and Summary Pages
One small issue kept the election from being "perfect" in Maryland.  There
was one legislative district that retained the party designation from the
Primary, rather than being changed to Non Partisan.  Unfortunately, there is
no opportunity to catch this in the proofing process, unless you do a manual
L&A (which is nearly impossible on 2600 units).  The "Test Count" does not
display the Instruction page.  Is this a change that could be made on the
front end?
a.  Why is the Party designation on the Instruction page and the Summary
page?  It is in the header of the ballot.
b.  Why not eliminate the Instructions Page all together?  Post printed
instructions in the booth.  (This would simplify many issues, such as
changing TS Text, and hard coded info on this page.)
c.  The Party designation has to be changed in every district between the
Primary and the General, leaving many opportunities for failure.  Why not
have one option that changes them all automatically?

2.  Write-Ins
Montgomery County's attorney insisted on capturing the write-in votes for
the registered candidates - - by precinct.  Because this must be done on
EACH PC CARD that includes a write-in vote for a registered candidate, this
involved 4000 data entry edits.  2000 edits to remove the "other" votes, and
2000 entries to move the votes to the registered candidate.
Is there a better way?

3.  Election Summary Report by Precinct
Maryland candidates are used to precinct level reporting.  There is no easy
way to print the Election Summary report with all precincts, sorted by
precinct.  Montgomery County had to initiate the printing of the Election
Summary Report 227 times, each time selecting a different precinct.  They
printed these reports after the election, after the canvas, and after the
overseas ballots - altogether initiating 681 separate reports (and the same
for the html file, which they posted to their web site).
Perhaps this has already been improved in something beyond GEMS 1.17.17 -
but if not . . .

Sue Page
Maryland Project Manager
Diebold Election Systems, Inc.
cell 443-404-9621