Added Laporte County data #83
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Laporte County had similar output as Lake County, so we were able to basically use the same algorithm, but they skip precinct index 25 and hid a special character inside the NEW DURHAM 01 precinct name just to make things interesting.
|
@ryanjohnsonwi thanks! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Laporte County stored their election results in a similar format as Lake County, so we were able to apply our algorithm from Lake County, although Laporte skipped index 25 for their precincts and their pdf had a hidden character inside the NEW DURHAM 01 precinct name.