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

# Fw: SOV and Absentees

- To: "Global Support" <support@gesn.com>
- Subject: Fw: SOV and Absentees
- From: "Steve Knecht" <skglobal@earthlink.net>
- Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 17:14:16 -0800

    Don / Larry

    My prior approach with this type of request would be to call someone,
    discuss it, make sure I understood the issues and then get back to the
    customer, sometimes the same day.  Always within 24 hours.  Please explain
    how this is to be handled now and how the sales person stays informed about
    these issues.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Candy Lopez <CLopez@co.tulare.ca.us>
    To: <skglobal@earthlink.net>
    Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 11:13 AM
    Subject: SOV and Absentees

    > Steve,
    > State law requires us to break down the vote in the SOV for state and
    federal offices and issues by certain major districts.  In 1998 when we did
    this on a summary page in the SOV  the program included the full county
    registration again within the absentee line and inflated our registration
    totals to double what they should have been on the summary page.
    >
    > When we started apportioning the votes back to the precincts in 2000 this
    problem went away.  However now the law requiring the absentees to be
    apportioned back to the precincts has sunset and we would again like to
    basically count absentees by ballot type (with a slightly finer breakdown so
    we can break out the correct absentee totals for each of the required major
    reporting districts).  We have accomplished this by using DFMs absentee
    reporting precincts in the GEMs system as absentee precincts.  It works
    great EXCEPT when we create these precincts the system pulls the
    registration in for the precincts we are including in the absentee reporting
    precincts.  This causes the old problem of doubling the total registration
    on the SOV.  Can the program please be fixed to allow us to create these
    precincts without pulling registration figures into them and without losing
    the flexibility we now have for reporting?
    >
    > Right now we have these absentees for our March election set up as an
    Absentee Counter Group so we can have separate polling and absentee results
    columns on the Summary Report (a very popular feature we do not want to give
    up).  However Tari is telling us the only way we can prevent the doubling of
    the registration figures is to not set the absentees up as a counter group
    and instead set them up as regular reporting precincts with zero
    registration.  Why can't we have a feature to allow us to set up our
    absentee counter group and not pull in registration?
    >
    >

- Prev by Date: info from ABC news
- Next by Date: Re: Anchorage
- Index(es):
  - Chronological
  - Thread