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

# RE: Feedback from Maryland

- To: <support@dieboldes.com>
- Subject: RE: Feedback from Maryland
- From: "Ken" <ken@dieboldes.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:55:11 -0800
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <LGEBJLEPICBGOLMNFIKCGEBPCFAA.spdiebold@earthlink.net>

Sue,

Congratulations on a successful election. Please review the comments made by Nel, and also have a look at the latest GEMS and Ballot Station. Then for each topic, open up a feature enhancement request (RCR) on bugzilla (one topic per request). In the RCR, describe how the system currently works, and then describe how you would like it to work. Do a quick search using the bug query page to see if your request has already been made. This is general process, and not specific to your topics below.

It is true that one customer’s request might not substantiate the upgrade, but in many cases, something that works for one county will be helpful in many others. We welcome all feature requests. It costs you nothing to ask, and the worse that can happen is that your request will be marked as WONTFIX. Even if the request is rejected, we’ll explain why, and that will answer the question for the next person to ask. The point is to get the requests on record. We get around to most requests eventually, sometimes sooner than you’d think. On the other hand, not submitting the request is the only sure way to see it never gets assigned to anyone.

Finally, like Steve, I don’t follow issue 1.c. If you could describe this further on the support list, rather than just talking to Steve on the phone, that would be helpful. Maybe also send me a copy of your database and point out where in GEMS you were making all these changes.

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-support@dieboldes.com [mailto:owner-support@dieboldes.com] On Behalf Of Sue Page
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 11:17 AM
To: support@dieboldes.com
Subject: RE: Feedback from Maryland

Steve et al:

I think that we need to consider the process of adopting product

improvements. One customer's request for an upgrade may not substantiate

the upgrade. We need to analyze the request, define the cost/benefit, and

determine if the upgrade will improve our product overall.

I've found that we have great discussion via e-mail. My hope is that those

wise souls in product development will consider our suggestions, appreciate

the feedback in our discussions, and perform the appropriate analysis.

Call me on item 3, if you want more info.

Sue

-----Original Message-----

From: owner-support@dieboldes.com [mailto:owner-support@dieboldes.com]On

Behalf Of Steve Knecht

Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 1:44 PM

To: support@dieboldes.com

Subject: RE: Feedback from Maryland

Sue,

Sounds like a great election and you've come away with many good ideas for

improving the product. My only concern if you are wanting discussion from

this email or you are turning in RCR's for these items also. Some

discussion:

1. A single source or location for Party display would be beneficial. I

don't think it's necessary to display party on instruction page, but summary

page is a good idea I think, although display should come from a single

source field.

2. I would not be a proponent for eliminating the instruction page myself.

I would like to see a section of Ballot Station memory that held

instructions seperate from the election memory, so that the instructions

could be loaded, edited, changed seperate from the election data however.

3. I don't understand the following: "c. The Party designation has to be

changed in every district between the Primary and the General, leaving many

opportunities for failure. Why not have one option that changes them all

automatically?" Could you elaborate?

4. Write-ins: sounds like a good RCR.

5. Election Summary Report by Pct: Is there some reason they couldn't use

the SOVC if they wanted an all pcts report? On the other hand, I've

encountered this situation also, where we either have "all" or "one"

options. We do need a way to print a range of pcts if people want the

Summary Report Format. I think this would be a good RCR.

-----Original Message-----

From: owner-support@dieboldes.com [mailto:owner-support@dieboldes.com]On

Behalf Of Sue Page

Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 2:13 PM

To: Support

Subject: Feedback from Maryland

Maryland had a terrific election on November 5. 5100 units were implemented

in 500 precincts across 4 Counties. Voter turnout was moderately heavy.

The R6 units were enthusiastically received by the voters.

Montgomery County resolved all of their process issues that caused delayed

openings and closings in the Primary. They were 90% reporting by 10:00, and

completed the election at 11:40 (missing only 4 PC Cards). In fact, the

10:00 news showed the "Diebold" Counties as 60% of the early results, with

those Counties consisting of only 40% of the voters.

We're working on a detailed report, which will be shared in the future. For

now, however, I wanted to capture the following issues/comments/suggestions:

1. Party Designation on the Instructions and Summary Pages

One small issue kept the election from being "perfect" in Maryland. There

was one legislative district that retained the party designation from the

Primary, rather than being changed to Non Partisan. Unfortunately, there is

no opportunity to catch this in the proofing process, unless you do a manual

L&A (which is nearly impossible on 2600 units). The "Test Count" does not

display the Instruction page. Is this a change that could be made on the

front end?

a. Why is the Party designation on the Instruction page and the Summary

page? It is in the header of the ballot.

b. Why not eliminate the Instructions Page all together? Post printed

instructions in the booth. (This would simplify many issues, such as

changing TS Text, and hard coded info on this page.)

c. The Party designation has to be changed in every district between the

Primary and the General, leaving many opportunities for failure. Why not

have one option that changes them all automatically?

2. Write-Ins

Montgomery County's attorney insisted on capturing the write-in votes for

the registered candidates - - by precinct. Because this must be done on

EACH PC CARD that includes a write-in vote for a registered candidate, this

involved 4000 data entry edits. 2000 edits to remove the "other" votes, and

2000 entries to move the votes to the registered candidate.

Is there a better way?

3. Election Summary Report by Precinct

Maryland candidates are used to precinct level reporting. There is no easy

way to print the Election Summary report with all precincts, sorted by

precinct. Montgomery County had to initiate the printing of the Election

Summary Report 227 times, each time selecting a different precinct. They

printed these reports after the election, after the canvas, and after the

overseas ballots - altogether initiating 681 separate reports (and the same

for the html file, which they posted to their web site).

Perhaps this has already been improved in something beyond GEMS 1.17.17 -

but if not . . .

Sue Page

Maryland Project Manager

Diebold Election Systems, Inc.

suep@dieboldes.com

410-286-2834

cell 443-404-9621

https://www.mdvotes.org/

- References:
  - RE: Feedback from Maryland
    - From: "Sue Page" <spdiebold@earthlink.net>

- Prev by Date: RE: AccuVote-TS power-related questions
- Next by Date: Georgia election review
- Index(es):
  - Chronological
  - Thread