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

# Re: Gems - Ballot On Demand

- To: "Rcr List \(E-mail\)" <rcr@dieboldes.com>
- Subject: Re: Gems - Ballot On Demand
- From: "Nel Finberg" <nel@dieboldes.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 20:03:27 -0800
- References: <NCBBIGGNCKBDKCCGPEOAKENCDCAA.ken@dieboldes.com> <010901bf6879$aceb5a60$86d5fc9e@default>

Another comment that begs to be made: let's remember that the quality of ballots issued by BOD may be significantly less than ballots that are commercially printed. BOD is bound statistically to generate an increased volume of skewed ballots and thus stray marks, and hardly represents a panacaea for counties aiming at minimizing ballot quantity overshoot margins. Nel ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Knecht To: Ken Clark ; Rcr List (E-mail) Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 7:50 PM Subject: Re: Gems - Ballot On Demand Well said. Unofficial response: Disclaimers: This doesn't make GEMS a BOD system. Treating it as such is a mistake. This doesn't solve any of the problems associated with BOD printers not meeting Ian's ballot artwork specification. Using ballots that do not meet spec is a mistake. Continuing to sell BOD when we do not have a workable BOD system is a mistake. I didn't do it, no one saw me do it, you can't prove anything. Ken

- References:
  - RE: Gems - Ballot On Demand
    - From: "Ken Clark" <ken@dieboldes.com>
  - Re: Gems - Ballot On Demand
    - From: "Steve Knecht" <skglobal@earthlink.net>

- Prev by Date: Re: Gems - Ballot On Demand
- Next by Date: RE: Gems - Ballot On Demand
- Index(es):
  - Chronological
  - Thread