Iowa Caucuses (or Cauci?)

[Trausti]

Don't know why anyone would need a conspiracy theory. Incompetence will do. Come on, they're Democrats.

Haw haw haw! Haw haw! Dems are stupid. *wipes tear from eye*. You can’t find comedy like that at The Onion. Dude, you need to start a blog.

Thanks!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Some observations...

There are three campaigns complaining of errors: Warren, Sanders and Buttigieg. The order of magnitude of errors is 5%. This is very significant relative to the difference in the top two campaigns which was < .1%.

We do not need a conspiracy theory here. This COULD be a result of stupidity and complexity. Hanlon's Razor.

I will add, however, being critical of results also doesn't necessarily mean conspiracy. A number of people could have cheated independently, as an alternative.

Let's see what happens.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The decision comes despite the fact that the results are rife with potential errors and inconsistencies. NBC News has not called a winner in the race.

The Iowa Democratic Party on Sunday allocated delegates based on the results of last week’s Iowa caucuses, giving former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg the largest delegate count, followed closely by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

The party said it would, based on the results of the race it had collected, award 14 delegates to Buttigieg and 12 delegates to Sanders.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, will receive 8 delegates, while former Vice President Joe Biden will receive 6 and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., will receive 1, the party said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1132531

How bizarre.

They made this decision today, but the 5% errors are supposed to be fixed and resulted by tomorrow.

 

[Elixir]

The decision comes despite the fact that the results are rife with potential errors and inconsistencies. NBC News has not called a winner in the race.

The Iowa Democratic Party on Sunday allocated delegates based on the results of last week’s Iowa caucuses, giving former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg the largest delegate count, followed closely by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

The party said it would, based on the results of the race it had collected, award 14 delegates to Buttigieg and 12 delegates to Sanders.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, will receive 8 delegates, while former Vice President Joe Biden will receive 6 and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., will receive 1, the party said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1132531

How bizarre.

They made this decision today, but the 5% errors are supposed to be fixed and resulted by tomorrow.

Tuesday at the latest? When the news cycle has moved on, having already outlived its life expectancy in Iowa ...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Some observations...

There are three campaigns complaining of errors: Warren, Sanders and Buttigieg. The order of magnitude of errors is 5%. This is very significant relative to the difference in the top two campaigns which was < .1%.

We do not need a conspiracy theory here. This COULD be a result of stupidity and complexity. Hanlon's Razor.

I will add, however, being critical of results also doesn't necessarily mean conspiracy. A number of people could have cheated independently, as an alternative.

Let's see what happens.

5% error? Where is that reported. Saying that 5% of precincts are being reviewed isn’t saying there was 5% error.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Some observations...

There are three campaigns complaining of errors: Warren, Sanders and Buttigieg. The order of magnitude of errors is 5%. This is very significant relative to the difference in the top two campaigns which was < .1%.

We do not need a conspiracy theory here. This COULD be a result of stupidity and complexity. Hanlon's Razor.

I will add, however, being critical of results also doesn't necessarily mean conspiracy. A number of people could have cheated independently, as an alternative.

Let's see what happens.

5% error? Where is that reported. Saying that 5% of precincts are being reviewed isn’t saying there was 5% error.

Well, unless the campaigns are all liars or into frivolous complaints, it's the right order of magnitude.

 

[PyramidHead]

And now, to put any notion that this is just honest stupidity to rest, the IDP is literally claiming that correcting math errors in the results would compromise the integrity of the process.

Quoting the opinion of the IDP attorney:

"The incorrect math on the Caucus Math Worksheets must not be changed to ensure the integrity of the process.

The IDP's role is to facilitate the caucus and tabulate the results. Any judgement of math miscalculations would insert personal opinion into the process by individuals not at the caucus and could change the agreed upon results. That action would be interfering with the caucus' expression of their preferences.

There are various reasons that the worksheets have errors and may appear to not be accurate, however changing the math would change the information agreed upon And certified by the caucus goers."

Are you fucking kidding me?

 

[PyramidHead]

Also, meet the new "Voter Protection Director" for the Nevada Democratic primary! Her illustrious resume includes... uh... Pete... for America?



How anyone can consider themselves a leftist/socialist at the start of this election and not go full tankie/Leninist revolutionary by the end of it is something I am eager to witness.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And now, to put any notion that this is just honest stupidity to rest, the IDP is literally claiming that correcting math errors in the results would compromise the integrity of the process.

Quoting the opinion of the IDP attorney:

"The incorrect math on the Caucus Math Worksheets must not be changed to ensure the integrity of the process.

The IDP's role is to facilitate the caucus and tabulate the results. Any judgement of math miscalculations would insert personal opinion into the process by individuals not at the caucus and could change the agreed upon results. That action would be interfering with the caucus' expression of their preferences.

There are various reasons that the worksheets have errors and may appear to not be accurate, however changing the math would change the information agreed upon And certified by the caucus goers."

Are you fucking kidding me?

The math MUST NOT be changed by any particular campaign. There must be a consensus in order to have all potential changes that encompass the whole thing be altered at once. The process has to remain objective and fair to all participants.

It needs to be recanvased and reviewed by all campaigns until it is fixed and agreed to.

THAT SAID....

It is ludicrous that Bernie comes out of the process with 12 votes and Pete with 14.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And now, to put any notion that this is just honest stupidity to rest, the IDP is literally claiming that correcting math errors in the results would compromise the integrity of the process.

Quoting the opinion of the IDP attorney:

"The incorrect math on the Caucus Math Worksheets must not be changed to ensure the integrity of the process.

The IDP's role is to facilitate the caucus and tabulate the results. Any judgement of math miscalculations would insert personal opinion into the process by individuals not at the caucus and could change the agreed upon results. That action would be interfering with the caucus' expression of their preferences.

There are various reasons that the worksheets have errors and may appear to not be accurate, however changing the math would change the information agreed upon And certified by the caucus goers."

Are you fucking kidding me?

The math MUST NOT be changed by any particular campaign. There must be a consensus in order to have all potential changes that encompass the whole thing be altered at once. The process has to remain objective and fair to all participants.

It needs to be recanvased and reviewed by all campaigns until it is fixed and agreed to.

THAT SAID....

It is ludicrous that Bernie comes out of the process with 12 votes and Pete with 14.

Isn't that what happened last time, Sanders won a good deal of votes, but got fewer delegates. Sanders won more urban areas, and Buttigieg won more map. Which is why they report more data now?

This is a marathon and people are haggling about where the runners are 800 feet into the race and how Sanders would be further up if he didn't get boxed in by that other runner.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And now, to put any notion that this is just honest stupidity to rest, the IDP is literally claiming that correcting math errors in the results would compromise the integrity of the process.

Quoting the opinion of the IDP attorney:

"The incorrect math on the Caucus Math Worksheets must not be changed to ensure the integrity of the process.

The IDP's role is to facilitate the caucus and tabulate the results. Any judgement of math miscalculations would insert personal opinion into the process by individuals not at the caucus and could change the agreed upon results. That action would be interfering with the caucus' expression of their preferences.

There are various reasons that the worksheets have errors and may appear to not be accurate, however changing the math would change the information agreed upon And certified by the caucus goers."

Are you fucking kidding me?

It sounds like the caucus needs to be put to rest. There is certainly a 'No fighting in the war room' feel to an organization saying 'we can't fix it because accuracy could tamper with the sanctity of the vote'. Regardless, I have yet to see any evidence that the error is of much interest. I saw that one chart indicating Buttigieg benefited from the error by about 2 SDE's which is a fraction of a fraction of a delegate.

 

[PyramidHead]

Jimmy, this is why the Iowa results matter more than their cumulative impact on the final delegate count:



Does that happen in a situation where Pete finishes in a strong second place but isn't crowned victorious by CNN before there's an official count of the results? I doubt it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Jimmy, this is why the Iowa results matter more than their cumulative impact on the final delegate count:

Sanders won the popular vote in Iowa, and he has been saying so for a while. It is quite a bit of a pain that the press here and there will say "Buttigieg won" in a state that was not either a winner take all nor a race that was won by a single person, it was effectively a tie. And Sanders knows this and he has been saying his side, that he won Iowa's popular vote.

Buttigieg in flying up, not because he "won" Iowa, but because he exceeded all expectations in Iowa and Biden voters are swapping to him in droves.

Does that happen in a situation where Pete finishes in a strong second place but isn't crowned victorious by CNN before there's an official count of the results? I doubt it.

Yes, it does. Because Buttigieg is filling in a gap that Biden is leaving behind, largely because of the rat phucking.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I saw that one chart indicating Buttigieg benefited from the error by about 2 SDE's which is a fraction of a fraction of a delegate.

It is supposed to be a fraction of a delegate and proportional assignment, but please explain then why the IDP awarded 14 delegates to Pete and 12 to Bernie instead of 13 each.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I saw that one chart indicating Buttigieg benefited from the error by about 2 SDE's which is a fraction of a fraction of a delegate.

It is supposed to be a fraction of a delegate and proportional assignment,...

Yes, but again, very very very small amounts here.

...but please explain then why the IDP awarded 14 delegates to Pete and 12 to Bernie instead of 13 each.

Presumably because Buttigieg won more of the map than Sanders. It is kind of like the Electoral College, where all that empty space ads up disproportionately to populated areas.

I'm not about to defend the process, but I still believe that the final outcome isn't crazy. It is believable that the victory by precinct map could produce a result that gives Buttigieg a minor edge for delegate counts. We know Sanders won the popular vote, and that matters too. Sanders isn't (goodness I hope not) the nomination because of 1 or 2 delegates.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yes, but again, very very very small amounts here.

...but please explain then why the IDP awarded 14 delegates to Pete and 12 to Bernie instead of 13 each.

Presumably because Buttigieg won more of the map than Sanders. It is kind of like the Electoral College, where all that empty space ads up disproportionately to populated areas.

Perhaps you misunderstood the question. The assignment of SDE already took that into account. I am now discussing the assignment of national delegates based on SDEs, which again is supposed to be proportional to the SDEs. So let's say Pete got something like 564 and Bernie got something like 562. They had the same percent rounded to tenths. Why then would Pete get a disproportional count of 14 national delegates and Bernie 12, when the division is supposed to be proportional based on SDE assignments?

564/562 is closer to 13/13 than it is to 14/12. Right? Do you think that on top of what you are arguing about an electoral college-like map, that all other rounding procedures should also benefit Pete, even so much so that we ought to do weird and unexpected math?

I will add that when I first brought up the national delegate assignments, I wrote that the SDEs are supposed to be finalized today. So I had expressed that jumping to this weird assignment of national delegates prior to the finalization of SDEs upon which counts the national delegates are based is backward and seemingly potentially unfair. Would you support constructing official derived calculations prior to the finalization of numbers upon which they are based? Why or why not?

I'm not about to defend the process, but I still believe that the final outcome isn't crazy. It is believable that the victory by precinct map could produce a result that gives Buttigieg a minor edge for delegate counts. We know Sanders won the popular vote, and that matters too. Sanders isn't (goodness I hope not) the nomination because of 1 or 2 delegates.

There are two principles I support here: democracy and objectivity. Awarding delegates disproportionately is undemocratic by objective standards and I am only talking about the final national delegates for now. It's undemocratic. Now, I recall that Democrats made a big deal out of Russian interference in the 2016 election even though the effect was very small. A lot of principled arguments were made because it is a violation of democratic institutions. I support that criticism of foreign interference. I also support criticism here for the same reason. You can argue that the effects are small but coupled with all the other small effects it's like democracy getting bit to death by wiener dogs. It remains important to support democracy at all levels and while focus ought to be on the biggest discrepancies first, Iowa is currently the biggest discrepancy.

These counts are also not insignificant. As PyramidHead pointed out, they give a bump to candidates. The Iowa bump effect isn't something new as it's been this way since Iowa became first in 1972.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, but again, very very very small amounts here.

...but please explain then why the IDP awarded 14 delegates to Pete and 12 to Bernie instead of 13 each.

Presumably because Buttigieg won more of the map than Sanders. It is kind of like the Electoral College, where all that empty space ads up disproportionately to populated areas.

I'm not about to defend the process, but I still believe that the final outcome isn't crazy. It is believable that the victory by precinct map could produce a result that gives Buttigieg a minor edge for delegate counts. We know Sanders won the popular vote, and that matters too. Sanders isn't (goodness I hope not) the nomination because of 1 or 2 delegates.

There are two principles I support here: democracy and objectivity.

Okay, are you just posting to say something because I've answered you a couple times and you are just talking past that.

Awarding delegates disproportionately is undemocratic by objective standards and I am only talking about the final national delegates for now. It's undemocratic. Now, I recall that Democrats made a big deal out of Russian interference in the 2016 election even though the effect was very small. A lot of principled arguments were made because it is a violation of democratic institutions. I support that criticism of foreign interference. I also support criticism here for the same reason. You can argue that the effects are small but coupled with all the other small effects it's like democracy getting bit to death by wiener dogs. It remains important to support democracy at all levels and while focus ought to be on the biggest discrepancies first, Iowa is currently the biggest discrepancy.

And I said straight up, I'm not supporting the way Iowa does the Caucus. I'm refuting the arguments that this was fixed.

These counts are also not insignificant.

Yes they are. If the error presented in the chart from PH's post, the influence is negligible, the analogous error in centimeters in a race measured in kilometers that isn't winner take all.

As PyramidHead pointed out, they give a bump to candidates. This isn't something new as it's been this way since Iowa became first in 1972.

And Sanders maintained his steam via his results in Iowa, and Buttigieg is absorbing fleeing Biden supporters... who were never going to Sanders as their first alternate.

What is worrisome is that Sanders supporters (or people claiming to be Sanders supporters) are losing their shit over an election Sanders won the popular vote in... and has maintained his lead in New Hampshire. Their are fabuluous AGW like alternating claims of scandal, conspiracy, or simply issues of accuracy (depends on where the arguments are at the moment) and it is distracting the entire primary right now, all over the quibbling of maybe 1 or 2 damn delegates, but more likely 0 delegates because Buttigieg won more of the map of Iowa than Sanders did while getting about the same popular vote. This makes these supporters (or "supporters") look petty, immature, and crazy and it sure the heck doesn't reflect well on Sanders himself.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There are two principles I support here: democracy and objectivity.

Okay, are you just posting to say something because I've answered you a couple times and you are just talking past that.

I am? Please review the math I expressed in my post.

Awarding delegates disproportionately is undemocratic by objective standards and I am only talking about the final national delegates for now. It's undemocratic. Now, I recall that Democrats made a big deal out of Russian interference in the 2016 election even though the effect was very small. A lot of principled arguments were made because it is a violation of democratic institutions. I support that criticism of foreign interference. I also support criticism here for the same reason. You can argue that the effects are small but coupled with all the other small effects it's like democracy getting bit to death by wiener dogs. It remains important to support democracy at all levels and while focus ought to be on the biggest discrepancies first, Iowa is currently the biggest discrepancy.

And I said straight up, I'm not supporting the way Iowa does the Caucus. I'm refuting the arguments that this was fixed.

These counts are also not insignificant.

Yes they are. If the error presented in the chart from PH's post, the influence is negligible, the analogous error in centimeters in a race measured in kilometers that isn't winner take all.

As PyramidHead pointed out, they give a bump to candidates. This isn't something new as it's been this way since Iowa became first in 1972.

And Sanders maintained his steam via his results in Iowa, and Buttigieg is absorbing fleeing Biden supporters... who were never going to Sanders as their first alternate.

That may be partially true. There are also people moving from Warren to Sanders by the same token. From Yang to Sanders, from Steyer to Sanders. Etc. The biggest portion of persons, though, are not any campaign support but instead UNDECIDED voters. Those are the ones who give a big bump.

What is worrisome is that Sanders supporters (or people claiming to be Sanders supporters) are losing their shit over an election Sanders won the popular vote in... and has maintained his lead in New Hampshire.

Maintaining a lead ought not be an acceptable metric when looking at unfairness in democracy. A person can have 100% of the vote and be down to 51% from some undemocratic events. The analogy I gave is democracy being bitten to death by wiener dogs and I think it's relevant here. Though we need to prioritize, we should endeavor not to be complacent against any undemocratic shenanigans otherwise we risk the democracy.

Their are fabuluous AGW like alternating claims of scandal, conspiracy, or simply issues of accuracy (depends on where the arguments are at the moment) and it is distracting the entire primary right now, all over the quibbling of maybe 1 or 2 damn delegates, but more likely 0 delegates because Buttigieg won more of the map of Iowa than Sanders did while getting about the same popular vote. This makes these supporters (or "supporters") look petty, immature, and crazy and it sure the heck doesn't reflect well on Sanders himself.

The most recent post I discussed was about the national delegates, not the state delegates. Please review.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Also, what is with the attitude?

I haven't had time to do any analysis, though I'd like to, and well, I am hoping that the IDP and campaigns get their act together to finally publish a rational consensus that is fair and objective. In the mean time, I did note this single comment contained within a larger post and wanted to address it.

So, what exactly are you talking about?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Also, what is with the attitude?

I haven't had time to do any analysis, though I'd like to, and well, I am hoping that the IDP and campaigns get their act together to finally publish a rational consensus that is fair and objective. In the mean time, I did note this single comment contained within a larger post and wanted to address it.

So, what exactly are you talking about?

You mean your, "The claim is that the error is unbiased. This graph is inappropriate and misleading to look at that question. Sorry." quip? I seem to be one of the only one trying to put numbers into a truthful unbiased context.