4 ms·

I'd like to head off conspiracy theorizing by reminding everyone that unlike a secret ballot, caucus results are public (everyone at the event sees the count, a

I'd like to head off conspiracy theorizing by reminding everyone that unlike a secret ballot, caucus results are public (everyone at the event sees the count, and remembers it after). This is a flaw with the app that was supposed to aggregate these results, but it does not affect the integrity of the election. The results are being tabulated by phone, and can be verified by an auditable paper trail. Even without the paper trail, they could be reconstituted (or verified) by asking the people who attended the ~1700 caucus events. This was a disaster, but the caucus results are not suspect because of it.

Double_a_92 7y ago
Are caucus and primaries even legally obliged to have any strict formal standards? It's just party-interal business, right? They could toss a coin, or let anyone vote via mobile app from home...
- taejo 7y ago
  Don't organizations have a civil obligation towards their members to follow their own rules, though?
  - solarkraft 7y ago
    Theoretically. I'm not convinced the DNC practically has to do that (have there been real punishments?).
- contravariant 7y ago
  They could, but they would deservedly face criticism, just like now (except more severe).
- aptwebapps 7y ago
  It's not totally up to the parties. Each state has different laws about how their primary or caucus should be conducted.
  - InitialLastName 7y ago
    ... Different laws that were suggested and driven by whichever party was in control when they implemented them.
- SturgeonsLaw 7y ago
  > They could toss a coin Funny you should mention that... https://theweek.com/speedreads/893489/iowa-officially-first-caucusdeciding-coin-flips-year https://theweek.com/speedreads/893489/iowa-officially-first-...
- aksss 7y ago
  Sure, the party could opt to not even run a primary process I think (like most parties do when they have an incumbent in office). But they do have to at least appear in these run-offs to be fair and following the process they establish and be transparent to the degree possible.
mercer 7y ago
While true, I think there's still a good 'conspiracy' case to be made when you consider that a clear win in the Iowa Caucasus is big news, moreso when the winner is someone like Sanders. Fucking this up takes some wind out of the sails of, say, a potentially non-establishment candidate who is expected to win.
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
  This does have the unfortunate consequence of removing the steam from whomever has won (still unknown). But Biden is old school; he'd want to win this fair and square. If the Democratic party wants the best shot at winning 2020, they may be more open to the people's choice this time around. (In 2016, many superdelegates publicly declared support before the caucuses and primaries -- it could have as well swayed voters). All of the reporting in 2016, showed Clinton up by ~800 delegates compared to all candidates, without much explanation into how those delegates are not democratically elected. Even in light of what happened this evening, the party learned from 2016 and is running a more fair process.
  - mercer 7y ago
    > If the Democratic party wants the best shot at winning 2020, they may be more open to the people's choice this time around I'll admit that I'm unusually cynical of the mainstream Democrats, so far from objective. That said, I truly believe that it's quite possible they would rather have Trump for another term than Sanders, and from that perspective a lot of what's happened makes a perverse kind of sense.
  - aksss 7y ago
    > [Biden would] want to win this fair and square Ummm.. yes, but that doesn't mean he'd like someone else to win by cheating or skulduggery explained as "simple human incompetence". That latter happens all-to-often in local/regional inside-party politics ("whoops, we lost all the ballots from your precinct in a boating accident"). > the party learned from 2016 and is running a more fair process Yeah, involving a company called "Shadow" staffed by ex-Clintonites to represent final tallies in the first primary and changing the debate rules upon the sudden appearance of a guy worth $60 billion, and they're off to a great start! For what it's worth, I strongly subscribe to the maxim of not ascribing to malicious intent that which can be better explained by incompetence.

Double_a_92 7y ago

Are caucus and primaries even legally obliged to have any strict formal standards? It's just party-interal business, right? They could toss a coin, or let anyone vote via mobile app from home...

taejo 7y ago
Don't organizations have a civil obligation towards their members to follow their own rules, though?
- solarkraft 7y ago
  Theoretically. I'm not convinced the DNC practically has to do that (have there been real punishments?).
contravariant 7y ago
They could, but they would deservedly face criticism, just like now (except more severe).
aptwebapps 7y ago
It's not totally up to the parties. Each state has different laws about how their primary or caucus should be conducted.
- InitialLastName 7y ago
  ... Different laws that were suggested and driven by whichever party was in control when they implemented them.
SturgeonsLaw 7y ago
> They could toss a coin Funny you should mention that... https://theweek.com/speedreads/893489/iowa-officially-first-caucusdeciding-coin-flips-year https://theweek.com/speedreads/893489/iowa-officially-first-...
aksss 7y ago
Sure, the party could opt to not even run a primary process I think (like most parties do when they have an incumbent in office). But they do have to at least appear in these run-offs to be fair and following the process they establish and be transparent to the degree possible.

mercer 7y ago

While true, I think there's still a good 'conspiracy' case to be made when you consider that a clear win in the Iowa Caucasus is big news, moreso when the winner is someone like Sanders. Fucking this up takes some wind out of the sails of, say, a potentially non-establishment candidate who is expected to win.

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
This does have the unfortunate consequence of removing the steam from whomever has won (still unknown). But Biden is old school; he'd want to win this fair and square. If the Democratic party wants the best shot at winning 2020, they may be more open to the people's choice this time around. (In 2016, many superdelegates publicly declared support before the caucuses and primaries -- it could have as well swayed voters). All of the reporting in 2016, showed Clinton up by ~800 delegates compared to all candidates, without much explanation into how those delegates are not democratically elected. Even in light of what happened this evening, the party learned from 2016 and is running a more fair process.
- mercer 7y ago
  > If the Democratic party wants the best shot at winning 2020, they may be more open to the people's choice this time around I'll admit that I'm unusually cynical of the mainstream Democrats, so far from objective. That said, I truly believe that it's quite possible they would rather have Trump for another term than Sanders, and from that perspective a lot of what's happened makes a perverse kind of sense.
- aksss 7y ago
  > [Biden would] want to win this fair and square Ummm.. yes, but that doesn't mean he'd like someone else to win by cheating or skulduggery explained as "simple human incompetence". That latter happens all-to-often in local/regional inside-party politics ("whoops, we lost all the ballots from your precinct in a boating accident"). > the party learned from 2016 and is running a more fair process Yeah, involving a company called "Shadow" staffed by ex-Clintonites to represent final tallies in the first primary and changing the debate rules upon the sudden appearance of a guy worth $60 billion, and they're off to a great start! For what it's worth, I strongly subscribe to the maxim of not ascribing to malicious intent that which can be better explained by incompetence.