Re: Programming Encoder w/ 1 ballot style, multiple base pcts

This is a good question. Standard operating procedure is to either ignore the extra base precincts, or delete them from the database if they are too hard to ignore. You can just program the base precincts that matter onto the Card Encoder: If you think about it, what is to stop you. That can be tricky though, since the BS Create Card dialog doesn’t tell you which base precincts are with which ballots. If you want them gone, I suggest deleting them from the database.

I would really like to have this improved structurally, since it comes up a lot, but I have never been entirely happy with any of the potential solutions I have come up with. We could pick the first base precinct for each ballot in the report precinct, and display only that base precinct only in the list. Ballot Station knows that it is the same ballot for multiple base precincts after all. But is that base precinct label really what the poll-worker wants to see?

Maybe I don't understand the issue. And I'm assuming there are NO splits in the reporting precinct. While in most cases, once the consolidations of base precincts occurs, people use the "reporting" precinct label. That is only the way it is out west where they try to avoid "splits". But we can't count on that across the board in all states/counties. I would think that the "reporting precinct" could be displayed (except where there are two ballot types in the precinct - in which case you could indent the two base precincts in the BS - listing for create voter card function. The minute that splits are allowed in the precinct, what happens in your scenario? I think it is designed as is, because you CAN'T assume that you won't have splits.

Poll workers are working from a voter registration list, and those lists are by some kind of base precinct (by any other name). If we just show the first base precinct, will they always be able to figure out what selection they should be making, or will it mean that base precincts that are in their poll book are missing?

Do any of us know all the circumstances of how all VR systems handle their rosters? Again, it boils down to splits. You just can't assume no splits.

The other suggestion that has been thrown around is to have a checkbox in GEMS to mark a base precinct as “inactive”. All fine and dandy, but clicking on the checkbox is exactly as easy as deleting it, so the idea is not very inspiring.

But you at least have an audit trail going with the "inactive" approach vs. deleting it.

As always, ideas on “how it should work” are encouraged.

What about your favorite idea (adding another GEMS flag), whereby the admin person can determine whether "base precincts" or "reporting precincts" are displayed on the BS "create voter card" screen. The user's know whether they have split precincts or not (in most cases they don't), and if they don't they can select a reporting precinct approach (and have their VR roster match reporting precinct or include it in the roster).

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-support@gesn.com [mailto:owner-support@gesn.com] On Behalf Of Mark S Earley
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 5:32 PM
To: Support
Subject: Programming Encoder w/ 1 ballot style, multiple base pcts

When using a database that has multiple Base Precincts associated with a Report Pct, create voter card window in BS shows all of the bases even though they all have the same ballot style. Is this expected behavior? Does one need to program all of these base precincts into the Encoders for use at the polls or should they delete any unnecessary Bases from a Master Database when being used on a less complex election?

Mark Earley

850 422-2100 - office/fax

850 322-3226 - cell