|
----- Original Message -----
Sent: November 23, 1999 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: Ovals positioned back to back on ballots.
I disagree with Sophia. (brave or foolish?) This
potential restriction would make it very difficult to build public opinion poll,
census and survey ballots where 16 channels across are used.
Canadian elections use Sanford Expresso Bold pens where ever
possible. Although this pen has no carbon in the ink, (required for
infrared Accu-Votes) Canada does not have any infrared Accu-Votes in the
field.
The Expresso is a water based pen as opposed to the
Sharpie alcohol based pen, therefore does not soak through, does not dry out,
(to produce poor marks) has a strong fiber tip, and produces a filled oval
with minimal effort. Available at office outlet stores,
etc.
I would like to see this particular pen included in the
approved marking instrument section of our specifications for visible light
only.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: November 23, 1999 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: Ovals positioned back to
back on ballots.
I agree with Sophia. We have
little control over the type of pen that gets used for marking ballots.
Bleed through is always a possibility even if the voter doesn't use a
Sharpie. GEMS should restrict the placement of ovals back to
back.
Ian
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 1:05
PM
Subject: RE: Ovals positioned back to
back on ballots.
Since Global does not have a mandatory requirement on marking
instruments
for the ballots, customers may choose pens other than the
Global
recommendations (Eberhart Faber) for economic reasons. Like
the Sharpies,
those pens may cause bleed through on certain type of
paper. To avoid any
sort of "bleed through" problem, I
believe that the solution be handled in
GEMS.
Perhaps, we should
suggest that it be handled in GEMS as well as removing
the Sharpies from
the list of approved ballot marking instruments.
-----Original
Message-----
From: Tyler [mailto:tyler@dieboldes.com]
Sent: Monday,
November 22, 1999 10:11 AM
To: sophia@dieboldes.com; Request For
Change
Subject: Re: Ovals positioned back to back on ballots.
I
have been aware for some time (from personal experience) that Sharpie
pens
cause bleed through on ballots and could cause a problem if ovals on
the
front and back were ever back to back.
How about if we remove
Sharpie pens from the list of approved ballot marking
instruments and
train our customers not to use Sharpie pens? This seems
like the
easy, low-tech solution.
Tyler
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sophia Lee <sophia@dieboldes.com>
To: Request For
Change <rcr@dieboldes.com>
Date:
Monday, November 22, 1999 11:53 AM
Subject: Ovals positioned back to back
on ballots.
>RCR: sl-112099-01
>Requested: November 20,
1999
>Required: December 15 1999
>County: King County,
WA
>Election: February 29, 2000
>
>The election in King
County on November 2, 1999 went well. However, we did
>have a
"bleed-through" problem from the Sharpie Pens.
>There were a lot of
races and issues in this November election resulting in
>some 450
ballot styles. Unfortunately, a couple of the ovals on
the
Seattle
>ballots were back to back. Some of the marks on
the front of the ballot
>bled through to the ovals on the back of the
ballots causing a race on the
>back to register as over-votes.
This was detected and corrected within 2
>hours of the opening of the
polls.
>Since Sharpies are still approved ballot marking instruments
(according to
>Ian), request that GEMS automatically detect if the
ovals for any ballot
are
>back to back and either
>a) provide
an exception report identifying the ballot styles with back to
>back
ovals or
>b) automatically adjust the oval column for the
ballot.
|