Fw: SOV and Absentees

["Steve Knecht" <skglobal@earthlink.net>]

Can someone respond to this?  The larger email is below, but the doubling of
Reg totals on the report is the problem.:

"It (SOVC totals by ballot style) works great EXCEPT when we create these
precincts the system pulls the registration in for the precincts we are
including in the absentee reporting precincts.  This causes the old problem
of doubling the total registration on the SOV."

----- Original Message -----
From: Candy Lopez <CLopez@co.tulare.ca.us>
To: <skglobal@earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 11:13 AM
Subject: SOV and Absentees


> Steve,
> State law requires us to break down the vote in the SOV for state and
federal offices and issues by certain major districts.  In 1998 when we did
this on a summary page in the SOV  the program included the full county
registration again within the absentee line and inflated our registration
totals to double what they should have been on the summary page.
>
> When we started apportioning the votes back to the precincts in 2000 this
problem went away.  However now the law requiring the absentees to be
apportioned back to the precincts has sunset and we would again like to
basically count absentees by ballot type (with a slightly finer breakdown so
we can break out the correct absentee totals for each of the required major
reporting districts).  We have accomplished this by using DFMs absentee
reporting precincts in the GEMs system as absentee precincts.  It works
great EXCEPT when we create these precincts the system pulls the
registration in for the precincts we are including in the absentee reporting
precincts.  This causes the old problem of doubling the total registration
on the SOV.  Can the program please be fixed to allow us to create these
precincts without pulling registration figures into them and without losing
the flexibility we now have for reporting?
>
> Right now we have these absentees for our March election set up as an
Absentee Counter Group so we can have separate polling and absentee results
columns on the Summary Report (a very popular feature we do not want to give
up).  However Tari is telling us the only way we can prevent the doubling of
the registration figures is to not set the absentees up as a counter group
and instead set them up as regular reporting precincts with zero
registration.  Why can't we have a feature to allow us to set up our
absentee counter group and not pull in registration?
>
>