[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

# RE: Florida "Audio Ballot" Standards

- To: <support@gesn.com>
- Subject: RE: Florida "Audio Ballot" Standards
- From: "Frank Kaplan" <fkglobal@earthlink.net>
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 13:16:37 -0600
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <PPECJKNKLDJLKJPKPPIOGEMGDBAA.ken@gesn.com>

Please make this a flag. Florida does not make decisions for the Western United States.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-support@gesn.com [mailto:owner-support@gesn.com]On Behalf Of Ken Clark
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 12:41 PM
> To: support@gesn.com
> Subject: FW: Florida "Audio Ballot" Standards
> Forwarded for the underprivileged. My interpretation is that there is only one item we don't currently meet. An RCR to this effect should appear shortly.
> One other item deserves special mention:

> > The voter must be able to determine the races which he or she is allowed to vote in and to determine which candidates are available in each race

> The question is how to interpret "which candidates are available". If a race is fully voted because of straight party (say), then all the other candidates in the race are no longer "available" to vote until the candidate voted by straight party has been canceled. But, unless we play these candidates, the voter will never know that they would have been available to vote for in the first place.
> The only real solution here is to make whether we play these candidates a flag, and let the jurisdictions decide for themselves. Right now we take the conservative approach and play them unconditionally.
> Ken

- Follow-Ups:
  - RE: Florida "Audio Ballot" Standards
    - From: "Ken Clark" <ken@gesn.com>

- References:
  - FW: Florida "Audio Ballot" Standards
    - From: "Ken Clark" <ken@gesn.com>

- Prev by Date: FW: Florida "Audio Ballot" Standards
- Next by Date: RE: Florida "Audio Ballot" Standards
- Index(es):
  - Chronological
  - Thread