Iowa Caucus 2020 - MegaThread

[Mihalik]

So this is your fault then? Because they used a third party, and their app crashed.

It wasn't a third party. It's a company set up by former Clinton campaign people and it is basically an extension of the DNC.

Hiring that company is the fucking definition of a conflict of interests.

I was thinking of something like either a major law firm or an auditor like KPMG or Deloitte.

[cubby]

It wasn't a third party. It's a company set up by former Clinton campaign people and it is basically an extension of the DNC.

Hiring that company is the fucking definition of a conflict of interests.

I was thinking of something like either a major law firm or an auditor like KPMG or Deloitte.

That's usually how those outside contracts go, extensions of former campaign staffers who are now "consultants". @Skroe has mentioned this several times re consultant agencies that make big money of the various political parties (all of them).

That might work but it would be very expensive. The easiest way to go would be to stop using their batshit insane method and just do ranked voting state wide.

[NED funded]

1.3 doesn’t round to 2 my guy. Do you really think that it’s a coincidence that over 50% of these rounding errors benefitted Mayor Cheat, when there was like at least 10 people to vote for?

These are not rounding errors. Count the number of delegates they have and how many have been assigned. In the first example, if you run down there are 7 delegates yet only 5 have been given to all candidates. What are they supposed to do with the other two?

I know this is hard for a leftists but I'm asking for you to think about it for a sec. The question you should be asking is how the remaining delegates are given.

Goes to show that both the left and the right will gobble up fake news if given the chance

[Mihalik]

That's usually how those outside contracts go, extensions of former campaign staffers who are now "consultants". @Skroe has mentioned this several times re consultant agencies that make big money of the various political parties (all of them).

That might work but it would be very expensive. The easiest way to go would be to stop using their batshit insane method and just do ranked voting state wide.

Yes. But that does not solve this specific cock up.

The IDP and the DNC should have coughed up the money, whatever it costs, to deal with this issue as soon as possible as transparently as possible, then afterwards learn from what is revealed and fucking fix it.

I'm willing to bet cash money that the people running Shadow (like this shit https://www.linkedin.com/in/gerard-niemira-aaa9b73) will be back in some paid DNC position or be given some other contract before this election cycle is over.

Like, for fuck sake... After all the scandals around the 2016 primary...you hire a former Clinton campaign surrogate to be involved in your 2020 primaries...

Like who the fuck greenlighted this?

Funny thing... Right after the cockup started... They tried to sort of cover up Shadow's involvement because they fucking knew it how it will look... THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU HIRE THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Like what the actual shit?

[Telogrus]

These are not rounding errors. Count the number of delegates they have and how many have been assigned. In the first example, if you run down there are 7 delegates yet only 5 have been given to all candidates. What are they supposed to do with the other two?

I know this is hard for a leftists but I'm asking for you to think about it for a sec. The question you should be asking is how the remaining delegates are given.

Goes to show that both the left and the right will gobble up fake news if given the chance

Wow this really is a byzantine system. Just add up all the delegates and do the rounding at the very end...

- - - Updated - - -

LMAO they added 1% to the results, and now Bernie is only 0.1% behind Cheat (even tho Bernie is winning the popular vote).

[Vash The Stampede]

That's a pretty big load of babyback bullshit.

"Everything is a conspiracy against Bernie!!!!" isn't exactly a great position to adopt.

It's more of a conspiracy towards our corrupt government, who apparently can't count votes as well as an online web survey. Bernie is just caught in the cross fire.

[Fugus]

It's always been a colossally stupid system. It didn't make sense 100 years ago. Today? Baffling.

Canada's system has basically none of these problems. We get some hangups when a district is STUPIDLY narrow, like within 50 votes, because people are going over the numbers with a fine-toothed comb and quadruple-checking everything. But not basic math errors (would get caught in that "quadruple checking"), and we've also got automatic systems going the whole time to be checked against. No "delegates" nonsense that just confuses the election; it's a straight plurality (not majority, because there's more than two parties, obv.)

The problem in the USA is, propose electoral reform, and you lose 80% of the voters. Every time.

As sad as it is, if it weren't so damn cold up there, I would want to move up there after all this when I am no longer so broke. To actually have first world quality healthcare and a voting system that isn't so ass backwards.

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

We need to hire the Count from Sesame Street to count these ballots.

[eschatological]

With 97% of precincts reporting in, there's only around 164k votes, which is pretty shitty turnout. Kind of not a great thing, though obviously the last 3% is pretty populated.

[Edge-]

https://mobile.twitter.com/LuluFries...56764649680898

The emperor has no clothes.
The emperor has no clothes.
The emperor has no clothes.

When are we gonna acknowledge this caucus for what it really is? A sham and a complete and utter disaster for democracy. I’ve had enough with these apologetics.

https://mobile.twitter.com/don_quick...64573839749120

Uh, if this is accurate then all of those rounding "errors" are not actually errors, and are indeed how they are supposed to work.

Looking at her first example -

The precinct has 7 delegates to split up.

Under "Awarding Delegates", you can see the math they did for each of the candidates (final alignment numbers). It's a simple equation multiplying the number of members for each candidate in the second alignment by the total number of delegates, 7, and then dividing that number by the total number of members present. NOTE: This appears to be the total including those from the FIRST ALIGNMENT, as those numbers match up to the 204 people counted there. That gives you the "number of delegates" each candidate receives.

And when you look,

Warren gets 1, you don't round 1.13 up.
Buttigieg gets 2, you don't round 2.29 up.
Biden gets 1, you don't round 1.30 up.
Sanders gets 1, you don't round 1.13 up.

BUT HERE IS WHERE THE CONFUSING PART COMES IN.

That's only 5 out of the 7 delegates for the precinct. Now, referring back to the rules, the two candidates with the highest rounded number are awarded the remaining delegates. In this case that's Buttigieg with a .29 and Biden with a .30.

This is why I have been railing about Sanders supporters not fucking understanding a god-damned thing. Because they god-damn don't, and then act all sanctimonious.

Sit down.

[Milchshake]

With 97% of precincts reporting in, there's only around 164k votes, which is pretty shitty turnout. Kind of not a great thing, though obviously the last 3% is pretty populated.

Bernie promised a revolution, a massive grassroots campaign...


And its a worse performance than 2016.



SCOOP: Trump supporters flooded a hotline used by Iowa precinct chairs to report Democratic caucus results after the telephone number was posted online, worsening delays in the statewide tally, a top state Democrat told party leaders Wednesday. w/
@jeneps

[Telogrus]

https://mobile.twitter.com/don_quick...64573839749120

Uh, if this is accurate then all of those rounding "errors" are not actually errors, and are indeed how they are supposed to work.

Looking at her first example -

The precinct has 7 delegates to split up.

Under "Awarding Delegates", you can see the math they did for each of the candidates (final alignment numbers). It's a simple equation multiplying the number of members for each candidate in the second alignment by the total number of delegates, 7, and then dividing that number by the total number of members present. NOTE: This appears to be the total including those from the FIRST ALIGNMENT, as those numbers match up to the 204 people counted there. That gives you the "number of delegates" each candidate receives.

And when you look,

Warren gets 1, you don't round 1.13 up.
Buttigieg gets 2, you don't round 2.29 up.
Biden gets 1, you don't round 1.30 up.
Sanders gets 1, you don't round 1.13 up.

BUT HERE IS WHERE THE CONFUSING PART COMES IN.

That's only 5 out of the 7 delegates for the precinct. Now, referring back to the rules, the two candidates with the highest rounded number are awarded the remaining delegates. In this case that's Buttigieg with a .29 and Biden with a .30.

This is why I have been railing about Sanders supporters not fucking understanding a god-damned thing. Because they god-damn don't, and then act all sanctimonious.

Sit down.

They should add up all the delegates statewide unrounded and then round them up at the very end. It would make the result way more accurate than having to do a bunch of coin tosses and wacky rounding, but whoever made these caucus rules couldn't understand basic mathematical concepts it seems.

[Elegiac]

Bernie promised a revolution, a massive grassroots campaign...

And its a worse performance than 2016.

Don't worry, I'm sure they'll find a way to blame it on the DNC.

[eschatological]

They should add up all the delegates statewide unrounded and then round them up at the very end. It would make the result way more accurate than having to do a bunch of coin tosses and wacky rounding, but whoever made these caucus rules couldn't understand basic mathematical concepts it seems.

That takes away sovereignty from the local precincts.

I guess you're not for grassroots politics then.

[Edge-]

Alright, so are you even going to acknowledge you've been on a high horse slinging patently wrong bullshit? Because that's what you, and many "progressives" have been doing for days. And you've been flat out wrong every time.

To address your points -

They should add up all the delegates statewide unrounded and then round them up at the very end.

Remember, Iowa already made concessions to Sanders supporters by making first and second alignment votes fully transparent in response to 2016 criticism. They didn't ignore y'all.

But what y'all ignored, was paying any attention to the rest of the rules of the caucuses so you could learn about shit like this and spend the last 4 years working to enact change.

It's too late now, and that doesn't even work with their current setup where delegates are awarded on a district by district basis. But hey, if Sanders supporters and other progressives in Iowa want to lobby for this change, I fully support that. In fact, I support them learning all the arcane, bullshit rules and raising high hell about all of them.

We're on the same side here.

It would make the result way more accurate than having to do a bunch of coin tosses and wacky rounding, but whoever made these caucus rules couldn't understand basic mathematical concepts it seems.

No, it's just a different view on things than how you think it should work. It makes perfect sense when you know the rules. And that's the rub. Y'all haven't bothered to learn how this shit actually works.

[beanman12345]

Bernie promised a revolution, a massive grassroots campaign...


And its a worse performance than 2016.



SCOOP: Trump supporters flooded a hotline used by Iowa precinct chairs to report Democratic caucus results after the telephone number was posted online, worsening delays in the statewide tally, a top state Democrat told party leaders Wednesday. w/
@jeneps

turnout is on par with 2016, and bernie won the raw vote totals. Not sorry that triggers irrational bernie haters.

[Milchshake]

turnout is on par with 2016, and bernie won the raw vote totals. Not sorry that triggers irrational bernie haters.

Bernie's campaign was promising 2008 levels though.

Promising massive uprisings is the lynchpin of all his policies.

Reporter: "Bernie how will you pass Medicare for All?"
Bernie, "Massive crowds will protest on my behalf."

Reporter, "Bernie, how will you get Medicare for All past McConnell's senate?"
Bernie, "Massive crowds will protest in Kentucky if I call them".


Again, 2016 was Bernie's peak. Green Lantern presidencies are a child's myth.



$50 million to lose Iowa.

[beanman12345]

Bernie's campaign was promising 2008 levels though.

Promising massive uprisings is the lynchpin of all his policies.

Reporter: "Bernie how will you pass Medicare for All?"
Bernie, "Massive crowds will protest on my behalf."

Reporter, "Bernie, how will you get Medicare for All past McConnell's senate?"
Bernie, "Massive crowds will protest in Kentucky if I call them".


Again, 2016 was Bernie's peak. Green Lantern presidencies are a child's myth.

If you say so. Bernie won the raw vote totals, that's all that should matter. He comes out looking like a winner regardless if he didn't come out with higher state delegates, he get's the same delegates as buttigege. if they didn't cap delegates, he'd have won the delegate count too. But you celebrate the "nah nah" trump won the EC vote", and anti democratic system if it makes you feel better in your irrationality.

[Milchshake]

If you look at the map, he is basically only winning the college towns now, while there are all sorts of older rural areas that went for Buttigieg or even Klobuchar that he carried in 2016.

The turnout wasn’t as large as they were hyping, and he was fairly weak among older voters. He might have had only around four per cent of voters over age sixty-five, and Iowa is really the only place you can get away with something like that. The electorate will be older everywhere.

$50 million to lose to Pete Buttigieg.

[Endus]

If you say so. Bernie won the raw vote totals, that's all that should matter. He comes out looking like a winner regardless if he didn't come out with higher state delegates, he get's the same delegates as buttigege. if they didn't cap delegates, he'd have won the delegate count too. But you celebrate the "nah nah" trump won the EC vote", and anti democratic system if it makes you feel better in your irrationality.

I don't know of any electoral system that works off raw vote count across an entire state/province. It's always broken down into districts like this. Not Canada or the UK, at least; I'll admit I don't have a comprehensive understanding of every electoral system in the world, and someone can correct me if there is an example of this.

"We'd be winning if the rules were different" is just an attempt to avoid admitting you're legitimately losing.