Even one better, I have been hearing that election
administrators are considering purchasing TS for early voting in person and
only one TS per election day polling place and continuing to use their precinct
count election day op scan whatever the vendor. To stay in that market, we
would therefore be in a situation where the "blended" system would include
third-party election equipment which equals election night third party data
upload into GEMS along side the election night TS results. How many
third-party systems do we currently interface with via
Lesley Koop Thompson
Customer Service Project Manager
Election Systems, Inc.
415-235-6553 (office cell)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 11:54
Subject: RE: AVOS/TS blended system
think we need to plan on most customers having both OS and TS in the future.
Most counties will need at least one OS to count Absentee ballots, and at
least one TS to meet ADA requirements. This is what we did in Georgia. I don't
think this will go away any time soon.
Diebold Election Systems
Unsolicited comments welcome. I do agree with most of the points in
your message. I do not look forward to making it work.
However, the counties are required to adopt an ADA compliant fix at the
precinct level. Most of those that have our OS system are going to go with a
blended system, at least in the near term.
Many have only recently purchased our OS and trained their staff,
voters, and pollworkers. They have been assured that it will work in
conjunction with our TS to satisfy ADA. I doubt they will
nullify that expenditure and make themselves look * by quickly
replacing it with TS (unless we offer them some very appealing
incentives). Also, many of our older customers do not want to leave the OS
world, and they will only purchase the TS as forced to.
Hopefully, the ADA requirements and the concerns you point out about
maintaining two systems will lead them all down the path to full TS. A few
are already looking in that direction. But,
blended systems are here for a while at least. If we make it work for them
(no fun in the support world), then they will likely stay
with us if/when they go full TS. If our blended system has major
problems, they will likely still go full TS, but with another
There has never
been even a small-scale test of this kind, to my
two cents is that this is a crazy way to run an election. Expecting
jurisdictions to train for and administer two systems is just nuts.
It is the worst of a paper-based election with the worst of an electronic
election. I wouldn’t worry too much about whether GEMS can receive
results from two systems simultaneously. Even if that were the case,
we could always fix GEMS. I’d be worried about whether poll workers
can send them.
firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Mark Earley
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 4:31
blended system uploads
With the new
ADA requirements facing our OS customers, they will likely be knocking on
our door to purchase TS units to compliment their existing OS systems with
one TS unit in each precinct - coexisting with the OS units in a
blended system. While there are some problems with programming such a
system (namely needing to have another Vote Center category created for
the TS units), these are hurdles that can be managed (I guess they
can - does anyone have thoughts on this?). My bigger concern is
handling the uploading of both TS and OS results via modem into the GEMS
What are the
known issues relating to upload? I know that TS uses RAS while
OS uses regular serial com ports, thus the need for separate modem banks.
Can GEMS receive modem uploads from both OS and TS units at the same time?
Has this been tested in any kind of a medium to large scale test? Does
anyone have any experience with receiving both TS and OS modem
422-2100 - office/fax
322-3226 – cell