[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: Absentee Header Cards? for GEMS
The cards are printed with names Precinct No. 1, Precinct No. 2, etc. and
not the names of the Reporting Precincts from Gems.
Also, there is not a sequential match. The Reporting Precincts do not
necessarily go in sequential order with the Precinct Header Cards. After
you program an election, go to the Pre Election Reports - Precinct Header
Cards, and you will see which Precinct ID matches your corresponding
Reporting Precinct.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-support@gesn.com [mailto:owner-support@gesn.com]On Behalf Of
Steve Knecht
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 1:09 PM
To: support@gesn.com
Subject: Re: Absentee Header Cards? for GEMS
Thanks Jeff. What do you mean the precinct cards are generic, not
necessarily sequential?
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Hintz <jhglobal@earthlink.net>
To: <support@gesn.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 11:07 AM
Subject: RE: Absentee Header Cards? for GEMS
> We did Pct. Header cards for Puerto Rico. They had only 1 style, but had
> around 1700 pcts. It worked fine for Central Count. However, the
printing
> of the Pct. Header cards are generic, and not necessarily sequential with
> the Gems Reporting Precincts.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-support@gesn.com [mailto:owner-support@gesn.com]On Behalf Of
> Steve Knecht
> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 11:16 AM
> To: Global Support
> Subject: Absentee Header Cards? for GEMS
>
>
>
> > Has anyone used Pct. Header cards with GEMS central count? I seem to
> recall
> > some problem with that in the past - that it had never been done or
> > something.
> >
> > The issue seems to be in Alameda where they use the Spectrum ABS process
> and
> > want to use automated inserting of ballots. By breaking up ballot
groups
> > into 134 styles vs. 1117 precincts, their roadmap for filling the
inserter
> > and the numbers of ballots they can pull and insert becomes much easier.
> > But they want to count by precinct when they come back. Can this be
> tested
> > relatively easily by someone in support?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ginnold, Elaine, ROV <eginnold@co.alameda.ca.us>
> > To: 'Steve Knecht' <skglobal@earthlink.net>
> > Cc: Clark, Brad, ROV <bclark@co.alameda.ca.us>
> > Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 12:42 PM
> > Subject: RE: Provisionals
> >
> >
> > > Steve,
> > > I'd also like to talk to you about counting av's by precinct and how
to
> do
> > > this without having to order ballots for every precinct.
> > >
> > > Elaine Ginnold
> > >
> > >
> > > > ----------
> > > > From: Steve Knecht[SMTP:skglobal@earthlink.net]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 5:33 PM
> > > > To: Brad Clark; Elaine Ginnold
> > > > Subject: Provisionals
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to understand more about the "long term" provisional
> > requirements
> > > > you see for Alameda County. I understand that for Piedmont and
> Oakland
> > > > we're using op scan ballots. However, let's sit down together and
> make
> > > > sure the requirements are clear as we move forward.
> > > >
> > > > Brad, I've got your demo unit. I'll be out of town next Monday
> through
> > > > Thursday. Is next Friday OK to bring it to you? Thanks
> > > >
> > > > Steve Knecht
> > > > Global Election Systems
> > > > 415-893-9941 office 415-893-9951 fax
> > > > 415-225-6591 cell 800-508-5710 pager
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>