I don’t understand why we would want to be in that market. The only point in selling AVTS units is that we sell a lot of them. The markup is not the same as in the optical scan days.
If the answer is “loss leader to get our foot in the door” then all-the-power. I sure hope this loss, and the risk of running bad elections due to their lunatic setup (two systems and two vendors) is worth it. I sure hope these counties are prepared to pay support fees to two companies, both of which should be higher due to the added logistics. They should also be prepared to make a spectator sport out of the finger pointing on election night.
Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-support@dieboldes.com
[mailto:owner-support@dieboldes.com] On
Behalf Of Lesley Thompson (earthlink)
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003
10:08 AM
To: support@dieboldes.com
Subject: Re: AVOS/TS blended
system uploads
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 imports/exports?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Lesley Koop Thompson
Customer Service Project Manager
Diebold Election Systems, Inc.
415-235-6553 (office cell)
512-413-7618 (cell)
lesley@dieboldes.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Stubblefield
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 11:54 AM
Subject: RE: AVOS/TS blended system uploads
I 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.
Karen Stubblefield-Emery
Customer Service Specialist
Diebold Election Systems
Phone: 972-542-6000 x166
Email: karen@dieboldes.com-----Original Message-----
From: owner-support@dieboldes.com [mailto:owner-support@dieboldes.com]On Behalf Of Mark Earley
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 10:24 AM
To: support@dieboldes.com
Subject: RE: AVOS/TS blended system uploadsKen,
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 vendor.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-support@dieboldes.com [mailto:owner-support@dieboldes.com]On Behalf Of Ken Clark
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 8:28 PM
To: support@dieboldes.com
Subject: RE: AVOS/TS blended system uploads
There has never been even a small-scale test of this kind, to my knowledge.
My unsolicited 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.
Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-support@dieboldes.com [mailto:owner-support@dieboldes.com] On Behalf Of Mark Earley
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 4:31 PM
To: Support
Subject: AVOS/TS 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 server.
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 uploads?
Thanks.
Mark
Mark Earley
850 422-2100 - office/fax
850 322-3226 – cell
