Iowa Caucuses (or Cauci?)

[Jimmy Higgins]

When I read and hear that the managers at each of the sites were having problems downloading the software on the day of the Caucus, it really isn't too hard to suggest that one major issue was preparation. It sounds like training was available, but not enough took it.

The second issue, is possibly right-wing trolls stuffing up the phone lines. We really don't know this happened or to the magnitude it happened (if it did indeed). Forget about aligning Russia with the events. America is quite capable of botching a small election on its own.

Actually, all they want is uncertainty in the system. And even the President of the US has done his part to increase that, with all the shit he's said about illegal voting.

The fastest way to uncertainty in the results is certainty of attempted interference.

No... it is "implication". Watch Trump and how he works using implication. You don't need to create false results, you just need to implicate the results could be false. Implications of inaccurate elections is a lot easier to pull off than actually hacking an election.

There is no question whether there were attempts at interference by oppositional forces.

That is a bit vague, I'm not certain your context.

The party claims this did not impact the final results, and I believe them; but the coordinated actions that make it even more of a shit show fall directly in line with established tactics.

But so does launching new software at the same time you are performing an actual election.

We need to address foreign interference with our elections.

We need to address America's over reliance on social media which makes America susceptible to trolling and goading online by "supporters of Trump" or "supporters of Sanders".

 

[PyramidHead]

I'm far and away more concerned about domestic interference in our elections, like what we saw this week in Iowa, where there are still numerous discrepancies unresolved between counts, all of which coincidentally elevate Pete and bring down Bernie. The Sanders campaign has released this list of discrepancies, which would have awarded him 2.5 SDE (Pete is up by 1.5 in the official final tally):






And that isn't even taking into account the predominantly non-white satellite districts that are being literally ignored as if they don't exist. Again, purely by happenstance, this has the effect of damaging Bernie's counts compared to Pete's. Fucking 3 minutes before Pete's CNN town hall, where he yet again claimed victory, the final (incorrect, incomplete) numbers were published.

Next time you see a raging internet Bernie Bot/Bro/Troll getting upset that her chosen candidate is yet again being ratfucked by the establishment, maybe remember this contest and what took place.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So first...News media announced last night that the results were 100% done. What they did not tell you is that they rounded up. It's somewhere between 99% and 100% done. I have been checking the websites with numbers over and over just waiting for a finish...it hasn't happened yet. There is a clear anti-Bernie sentiment, though. I could see it with Chris Cuomo, for example.

Regarding the specific cases of errors PyramidHead has listed, let me say this. This thing is EXTREMELY complicated. There are thousands of precincts and a hundred columns of data for each one. The process was ALWAYS bad but now it has improved. We actually have traceability now that we did not have before and this is actually a good thing. It means we can go back and compute numbers and try to reproduce results. We can show mistakes like the list from above. HOWEVER, any list that ONLY shows mistakes in favor of Bernie is not reasonable. There are going to be all kinds of errors. Mistakes in favor of Bernie ought to be expected to be a higher percent than others because Bernie had more initial votes and more Final alignment votes, too. However, there will also be SOME mistakes in favor of Buttigieg, Warren, and Biden.

What is needed is for all the campaigns to review the numbers and in each precinct have across the board agreement that they are correct. The Bernie campaign needs to participate in the recanvas to ensure no funny business. In short, Tom Perez from the DNC is correct.

In the longer term, Iowa needs to move to a primary system that streamlines the whole process and makes it more democratic.

 

[PyramidHead]

So first...News media announced last night that the results were 100% done. What they did not tell you is that they rounded up. It's somewhere between 99% and 100% done. I have been checking the websites with numbers over and over just waiting for a finish...it hasn't happened yet. There is a clear anti-Bernie sentiment, though. I could see it with Chris Cuomo, for example.

Regarding the specific cases of errors PyramidHead has listed, let me say this. This thing is EXTREMELY complicated. There are thousands of precincts and a hundred columns of data for each one. The process was ALWAYS bad but now it has improved. We actually have traceability now that we did not have before and this is actually a good thing. It means we can go back and compute numbers and try to reproduce results. We can show mistakes like the list from above. HOWEVER, any list that ONLY shows mistakes in favor of Bernie is not reasonable. There are going to be all kinds of errors. Mistakes in favor of Bernie ought to be expected to be a higher percent than others because Bernie had more initial votes and more Final alignment votes, too. However, there will also be SOME mistakes in favor of Buttigieg, Warren, and Biden.

Of course, and those campaigns should be compiling their own internal data to show those. I read a good take on the process that went something like: there doesn't have to be a complete conspiracy in order for bias against a candidate to creep in, because when everything is a toss-up and in chaos, people feel empowered to sneak in their conscious or unconscious preferences when making judgment calls to resolve conflicts, whereas a functional system would not present as many of those opportunities.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm far and away more concerned about domestic interference in our elections, like what we saw this week in Iowa, where there are still numerous discrepancies unresolved between counts, all of which coincidentally elevate Pete and bring down Bernie. The Sanders campaign has released this list of discrepancies, which would have awarded him 2.5 SDE (Pete is up by 1.5 in the official final tally):

View attachment 26019
View attachment 26020
View attachment 26021
View attachment 26022

And that isn't even taking into account the predominantly non-white satellite districts that are being literally ignored as if they don't exist. Again, purely by happenstance, this has the effect of damaging Bernie's counts compared to Pete's. Fucking 3 minutes before Pete's CNN town hall, where he yet again claimed victory, the final (incorrect, incomplete) numbers were published.

Next time you see a raging internet Bernie Bot/Bro/Troll getting upset that her chosen candidate is yet again being ratfucked by the establishment, maybe remember this contest and what took place.

Calm the fuck down. I don't want Trump getting re-elected in 2020 because some people just lost their fucking minds. Sanders tied in Iowa... Sanders did well in Iowa... Sanders needs to do well in other states and the final delegate count in Iowa won't matter. Buttigieg is claiming victory because he is in a hole in most of the other primaries. He needs to make up a lot of ground, ground that Sanders doesn't have to make up, be the first or second place guy in NH, NV, SC.

Sanders wasn't screwed in Iowa. Stop sounding like Trump.

 

[PyramidHead]

Calm the fuck down. I don't want Trump getting re-elected in 2020 because some people just lost their fucking minds. Sanders tied in Iowa... Sanders did well in Iowa... Sanders needs to do well in other states and the final delegate count in Iowa won't matter. Buttigieg is claiming victory because he is in a hole in most of the other primaries. He needs to make up a lot of ground, ground that Sanders doesn't have to make up, be the first or second place guy in NH, NV, SC.

Sanders wasn't screwed in Iowa. Stop sounding like Trump.

It's handy that any DNC forces who want to tilt the needle in the primary can do so with the confidence that whoever points it out will be reliably chastised as "sounding like Trump"

 

[PyramidHead]

Not Trumpian: Pete declaring victory with no official results, Iowa using company previously paid $42k by Pete's campaign to count the results, the same company founded by a former Clinton staffer who now supports Pete

Trumpian: mentioning any of this and how it exemplifies the pattern that started when Pete, Nancy, Chuck, and Neera met last year to figure out what to do about Bernie Sanders

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Calm the fuck down. I don't want Trump getting re-elected in 2020 because some people just lost their fucking minds. Sanders tied in Iowa... Sanders did well in Iowa... Sanders needs to do well in other states and the final delegate count in Iowa won't matter. Buttigieg is claiming victory because he is in a hole in most of the other primaries. He needs to make up a lot of ground, ground that Sanders doesn't have to make up, be the first or second place guy in NH, NV, SC.

Sanders wasn't screwed in Iowa. Stop sounding like Trump.

It's handy that any DNC forces who want to tilt the needle in the primary can do so with the confidence that whoever points it out will be reliably chastised as "sounding like Trump"

It is paranoia. Sanders won the popular vote in the Caucus and you are railing about discrepancies about rounding here and there. Sanders is likely going to win NH, which isn't meaningful being from Vermont, but is picking up in Nevada. These are both straight up votes.

 

[ZiprHead]

No... it is "implication". Watch Trump and how he works using implication. You don't need to create false results, you just need to implicate the results could be false. Implications of inaccurate elections is a lot easier to pull off than actually hacking an election.

This.

It's all covered in the link to the Atlantic article I posted in the billion spending thread. This is one of the techniques in a widespread campaign of propaganda and disinformation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not Trumpian: Pete declaring victory with no official results, Iowa using company previously paid $42k by Pete's campaign to count the results, the same company founded by a former Clinton staffer who now supports Pete

Yeah, this type of bullshit. Buttigieg's campaign bought software from them in July 2019. Now it is being swung like right-wing propagandists that the Buttigieg campaign just gave the company $42,000. That would seemingly be quite a long shot attempt to defeat Sanders, when back in July 2019, the issue was Biden, not Sanders. And Iowa has everything on paper.

Nevada has contracted with Shadow, but DNC head Tom Perez says Shadow has been dropped.

 

[blastula]

I'm far and away more concerned about domestic interference in our elections, like what we saw this week in Iowa, where there are still numerous discrepancies unresolved between counts, all of which coincidentally elevate Pete and bring down Bernie.

All?

Iowa Caucus Results Riddled With Errors and Inconsistencies - The New York Times

The results released by the Iowa Democratic Party on Wednesday were riddled with inconsistencies and other flaws. According to a New York Times analysis, more than 100 precincts reported results that were internally inconsistent, that were missing data or that were not possible under the complex rules of the Iowa caucuses.

In some cases, vote tallies do not add up. In others, precincts are shown allotting the wrong number of delegates to certain candidates. And in at least a few cases, the Iowa Democratic Party’s reported results do not match those reported by the precincts.

Some of these inconsistencies may prove to be innocuous, and they do not indicate an intentional effort to compromise or rig the result. There is no apparent bias in favor of the leaders Pete Buttigieg or Bernie Sanders, meaning the overall effect on the winner’s margin may be small.

The counts are made by volunteer staff. This is the first year they have released all this data other than SDEs. The past caucuses may would have numerous errors as well if they were looked at as closely as they are this time.

 

[laughing dog]

People:
Bernie is the chosen one - the savior of the USA. So, any obstacle placed in his path must be either some satanic conspiracy.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm far and away more concerned about domestic interference in our elections, like what we saw this week in Iowa, where there are still numerous discrepancies unresolved between counts, all of which coincidentally elevate Pete and bring down Bernie.

All?

Iowa Caucus Results Riddled With Errors and Inconsistencies - The New York Times

The results released by the Iowa Democratic Party on Wednesday were riddled with inconsistencies and other flaws. According to a New York Times analysis, more than 100 precincts reported results that were internally inconsistent, that were missing data or that were not possible under the complex rules of the Iowa caucuses.

In some cases, vote tallies do not add up. In others, precincts are shown allotting the wrong number of delegates to certain candidates. And in at least a few cases, the Iowa Democratic Party’s reported results do not match those reported by the precincts.

Some of these inconsistencies may prove to be innocuous, and they do not indicate an intentional effort to compromise or rig the result. There is no apparent bias in favor of the leaders Pete Buttigieg or Bernie Sanders, meaning the overall effect on the winner’s margin may be small.

The counts are made by volunteer staff. This is the first year they have released all this data other than SDEs. The past caucuses may would have numerous errors as well if they were looked at as closely as they are this time.

Another reason why caucuses are stupid.

And trying to say this is intentional is a Republican talking point.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't think the form of the primary is the real issue. The real issue is why bother about one particular small state.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm far and away more concerned about domestic interference in our elections, like what we saw this week in Iowa, where there are still numerous discrepancies unresolved between counts, all of which coincidentally elevate Pete and bring down Bernie.

All?

Iowa Caucus Results Riddled With Errors and Inconsistencies - The New York Times

The results released by the Iowa Democratic Party on Wednesday were riddled with inconsistencies and other flaws. According to a New York Times analysis, more than 100 precincts reported results that were internally inconsistent, that were missing data or that were not possible under the complex rules of the Iowa caucuses.

In some cases, vote tallies do not add up. In others, precincts are shown allotting the wrong number of delegates to certain candidates. And in at least a few cases, the Iowa Democratic Party’s reported results do not match those reported by the precincts.

Some of these inconsistencies may prove to be innocuous, and they do not indicate an intentional effort to compromise or rig the result. There is no apparent bias in favor of the leaders Pete Buttigieg or Bernie Sanders, meaning the overall effect on the winner’s margin may be small.

The counts are made by volunteer staff. This is the first year they have released all this data other than SDEs. The past caucuses may would have numerous errors as well if they were looked at as closely as they are this time.

To be clear...

No "apparent bias" would naturally be in reference to no more mistakes than expected per vote.

However, Sanders had more votes. So there can be more mistakes with Sanders numbers but still be called unbiased. Moreover in such a very small difference in winning numbers and a large problem, there is a strong chance Sanders won.

I'd like to see a recanvas here just because of large random error.

Now if it's also true that there was something systematic, we ought to observe it during such process.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think the form of the primary is the real issue. The real issue is why bother about one particular small state.

I'm more interested in why Sanders doing well as reported in the results is a conspiracy to keep him from getting the nomination!

People:
Bernie is the chosen one - the savior of the USA. So, any obstacle placed in his path must be either some satanic conspiracy.

Are you saying Satan supports both Trump and opponents of Sanders? IE it is a vote for Satan either way is Sanders doesn't get the nomination?

 

[PyramidHead]

I'm far and away more concerned about domestic interference in our elections, like what we saw this week in Iowa, where there are still numerous discrepancies unresolved between counts, all of which coincidentally elevate Pete and bring down Bernie.

All?

Iowa Caucus Results Riddled With Errors and Inconsistencies - The New York Times

The results released by the Iowa Democratic Party on Wednesday were riddled with inconsistencies and other flaws. According to a New York Times analysis, more than 100 precincts reported results that were internally inconsistent, that were missing data or that were not possible under the complex rules of the Iowa caucuses.

In some cases, vote tallies do not add up. In others, precincts are shown allotting the wrong number of delegates to certain candidates. And in at least a few cases, the Iowa Democratic Party’s reported results do not match those reported by the precincts.

Some of these inconsistencies may prove to be innocuous, and they do not indicate an intentional effort to compromise or rig the result. There is no apparent bias in favor of the leaders Pete Buttigieg or Bernie Sanders, meaning the overall effect on the winner’s margin may be small.

The counts are made by volunteer staff. This is the first year they have released all this data other than SDEs. The past caucuses may would have numerous errors as well if they were looked at as closely as they are this time.

Here's a breakdown of all the errors, and a visualization of how they are distributed (from Twitter):

I put together a spreadsheet of all precinct issues I (and others) have identified. Currently there are 28 precincts w/ Delegate allocation errors.

The impact of correcting them would be +3.954 SDEs for Bernie. More than enough to overtake Pete.

Does that look random to you?

 

[Treedbear]

I don't think the form of the primary is the real issue. The real issue is why bother about one particular small state.

I watched some of the caucus coverage during the 2016 election and it was a joke. An extremely small part of the electorate brave inclement weather to spend hours just sitting around in groups of like minded people with the managers running around half confused. In the end there are reps from each candidate's group who go around trying to get people from the other groups to defect to their group by giving a really impromptu talk that is pitifully shallow. In the meantime the directors can't keep track of who left the room early, even though there are rules against that. And if the numbers don't add up they just assume that's what occurred. I watched it happen.

What we really need, especially in the primaries, is ranked choice voting. Nothing else will reliably come close to matching the electorate's true preference. I trust in the "wisdom of the crowd". But you won't get it the way we do it now.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

All?

Iowa Caucus Results Riddled With Errors and Inconsistencies - The New York Times



The counts are made by volunteer staff. This is the first year they have released all this data other than SDEs. The past caucuses may would have numerous errors as well if they were looked at as closely as they are this time.

Here's a breakdown of all the errors, and a visualization of how they are distributed (from Twitter):

I put together a spreadsheet of all precinct issues I (and others) have identified. Currently there are 28 precincts w/ Delegate allocation errors.

The impact of correcting them would be +3.954 SDEs for Bernie. More than enough to overtake Pete.

View attachment 26030

Does that look random to you?

Am I reading this wrong? What I see is that Buttigieg 564 SDEs, Sanders 562 SDEs.

The accumulated error in Buttigieg's favor < 2.0 SDEs and Sanders' favor < 2.5 SDEs.

The resulting errors amounted to less than half a percent. Yes, in general, the errors favored one over the other... BUT... if you draw that graph at a responsible scale, it is just noise and can be random. And the largest differences occurred with those with the most votes, which makes sense.

If I'm reading that chart right... people are messing their pants over absolutely nothing and are endangering our chances in November with or without Sanders as the nominee!

 

[blastula]

All?

Iowa Caucus Results Riddled With Errors and Inconsistencies - The New York Times

The counts are made by volunteer staff. This is the first year they have released all this data other than SDEs. The past caucuses may would have numerous errors as well if they were looked at as closely as they are this time.

Here's a breakdown of all the errors, and a visualization of how they are distributed (from Twitter)

That's a backtrack then because that shows all errors are not against Sanders. And the NYT did a more thorough analysis.