[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
GEMS 1.18.6 Cross Endorsement - Push
- To: <support@gesn.com>
- Subject: GEMS 1.18.6 Cross Endorsement - Push
- From: "Ken Clark" <ken@gesn.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:46:38 -0700
- Importance: Normal
I asked
for cross endorsement feedback
Aug 21, but of course the only feedback was the standard panic
RCR a month later.
Working with LHS, we
have implemented AVOS cross endorsement in GEMS 1.18.6. You need a new
194us.abo or 194usma.abo that ships with 1.18.6. Through
some fancy ABasic footwork no AVOS firmware revision is necessary.
LHS requested that
we implement a push variation similar to that requested by New
York. In Connecticut they push to the lower party. In New York
they appear to push to the highest party. I still don't have good
definitions for "low" and "high" for either of these, but the gist is
this: If a voter votes for the same cross endorsed candidate more than
once (ie for more than party), than the vote is still cast,
but the vote goes to the lowest/highest ranked party
only.
For now at least, we
have proposed an alternate system. When a candidate is cross endorsed, a
non-partisan entry is included along with the endorsements. This is done
automatically in the race editor. So, you can have a single endorsed
candidate, or have two-or-more cross endorsements for a candidate plus a
non-partisan endorsement of the candidate. That is, one or three+ entries,
never two. The non-partisan entry does not show up on the ballot, but an
extra counter for this candidate is created and it shows up on
reports. When voter votes for the same cross endorsed candidate more than
once, the vote is assigned to this "unknown" party. On the AV tape, you
will see:
Brian Courtney
DEM 25
Brian
Courtney LIB 30
Brian Courtney
UNK 10
Brian Courtney
TOT 65
Jurisdictions that
want the push statistic can just add the UNK value to whatever party they
like. My sincere hope is that this will meet everyone's statutory
requirements. This is, after all, a strict superset of
push. If we were instead to add the votes to the push party implicitly and
not store the UNK statistic, you could never tell whether the vote was
assigned explicitly by the voter, or implicitly by the push
rule. This way you can get the push stat, plus know how many of those
votes were implicit.
This argument
appears to have worked with LHS in this election at least, but I would like to
see the statutes for each jurisdiction that does cross endorsement before the
next panic RCR. My gut feeling is that there are no steadfast statutes on
this, and that the push rules are a holdover from the way that lever machines
work, but I need confirmation of this theory from those
responsible.
Ken