----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 9:19
AM
Subject: Fw: Ovals positioned back to
back on ballots.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: November 23, 1999 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: Ovals positioned back to back on ballots.
I disagree with Sophia. (brave or foolish?) This
potential restriction would make it very difficult to build public opinion
poll, census and survey ballots where 16 channels across are used.
Canadian elections use Sanford Expresso Bold pens where ever
possible. Although this pen has no carbon in the ink, (required for
infrared Accu-Votes) Canada does not have any infrared Accu-Votes in the
field.
The Expresso is a water based pen as opposed to the
Sharpie alcohol based pen, therefore does not soak through, does not dry out,
(to produce poor marks) has a strong fiber tip, and produces a filled
oval with minimal effort. Available at office outlet stores,
etc.
I would like to see this particular pen included in the
approved marking instrument section of our specifications for visible light
only.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: November 23, 1999 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: Ovals positioned back to
back on ballots.
I agree with Sophia. We
have little control over the type of pen that gets used for marking
ballots. Bleed through is always a possibility even if the voter
doesn't use a Sharpie. GEMS should restrict the placement of ovals
back to back.
Ian
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 1:05
PM
Subject: RE: Ovals positioned back to
back on ballots.
Since Global does not have a mandatory requirement on
marking instruments
for the ballots, customers may choose pens other
than the Global
recommendations (Eberhart Faber) for economic
reasons. Like the Sharpies,
those pens may cause bleed through on
certain type of paper. To avoid any
sort of "bleed through"
problem, I believe that the solution be handled
in
GEMS.
Perhaps, we should suggest that it be handled in GEMS
as well as removing
the Sharpies from the list of approved ballot
marking instruments.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tyler [mailto:tyler@dieboldes.com]
Sent: Monday,
November 22, 1999 10:11 AM
To: sophia@dieboldes.com; Request For
Change
Subject: Re: Ovals positioned back to back on ballots.
I
have been aware for some time (from personal experience) that Sharpie
pens
cause bleed through on ballots and could cause a problem if ovals
on the
front and back were ever back to back.
How about if we
remove Sharpie pens from the list of approved ballot
marking
instruments and train our customers not to use Sharpie
pens? This seems
like the easy, low-tech
solution.
Tyler
-----Original Message-----
From: Sophia Lee
<sophia@dieboldes.com>
To:
Request For Change <rcr@dieboldes.com>
Date: Monday, November
22, 1999 11:53 AM
Subject: Ovals positioned back to back on
ballots.
>RCR: sl-112099-01
>Requested: November 20,
1999
>Required: December 15 1999
>County: King County,
WA
>Election: February 29, 2000
>
>The election in King
County on November 2, 1999 went well. However, we did
>have a
"bleed-through" problem from the Sharpie Pens.
>There were a lot of
races and issues in this November election resulting in
>some 450
ballot styles. Unfortunately, a couple of the ovals on
the
Seattle
>ballots were back to back. Some of the marks
on the front of the ballot
>bled through to the ovals on the back of
the ballots causing a race on the
>back to register as
over-votes. This was detected and corrected within 2
>hours of
the opening of the polls.
>Since Sharpies are still approved ballot
marking instruments (according to
>Ian), request that GEMS
automatically detect if the ovals for any ballot
are
>back to
back and either
>a) provide an exception report identifying the
ballot styles with back to
>back ovals or
>b) automatically
adjust the oval column for the
ballot.