4 ms·

That's not the concern - the concern is that a company which doesn't seem to list it's roster or have any public information about it is now attaching itself di

That's not the concern - the concern is that a company which doesn't seem to list it's roster or have any public information about it is now attaching itself directly to the voting systems. The Community has been in an uproar before about how opaque code is in voting machines, why shouldn't we be concerned about not only the code but the employees of a company who are involved in voting?

elicash 7y ago
These aren't voting machines. "Involved in voting" is quite misleading. The app doesn't actually help with the voting part. They help in the calculation of delegates and the transmission. The votes are recorded on paper. This had a calculator tool (that actually functioned correctly) to count the delegates. The part the failed was the transmission of results to the Iowa Dem Party. The back-up (in addition to paper) was the phone hotline they normally use, but that got overloaded. Additionally, the overall caucus process for reporting -- unrelated to the tech -- was more convoluted this time around and the numbers didn't match for the different rounds of voting. This bigger problem caused the party to have to go back to the paper backups in order to verify results. That's what took so long. I'd be shocked if anybody actually disputed any of the results. Every campaign keeps their own records of as many precincts as possible and they're announced to everybody attending. Plus, there's the paper. And people record video of these events on their phones these days, too. In short, this wasn't a voting system, as you claim. It was a reporting system. What's the vendor they used for the phone reporting system? Are you upset that you don't know the names of the employees who run that phone hotline system? I'd be fine with a requirement for that for reporting systems, but nobody has ever asked for it previously for past elections so we shouldn't be shocked we don't have it now. Also, when you said it had "links to Clinton," I took it as you had a concern about that. Glad we're both in agreement that it's actually quite normal for vendors that Dem Party would and should use. It's normal - encouraged, even! - for Democratic vendors to work with Democratic candidates.
- ghostoftiber 7y ago
  > Organizers of the local meetings were supposed to use the app created by startup Shadow to report results from Iowa’s unusual voting system. In the caucuses, people wishing to support a candidate must be physically present at a meeting, where they stand in groups and wait to be counted. > To make that process more efficient, the Iowa Democratic Party gave local managers the Shadow app to input results. But results were delayed and backup measures — such as calling a hotline — also failed, according to the New York Times. From the article, I definitely read that as the app is the way that results were reported. I also read it as the phone and paper ballots were the backup systems. The app absolutely is involved in voting, even if it's not the most authoritative resource, nor should it be. This was discussed last year (for example) in: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/08/iowa-caucuses-nevada-voting-phone-2020-presidential-election-democratic-dnc-how-to-caucus-vote/1677812001/ https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2019/0... > What's the vendor they used for the phone reporting system? Dunno, we should find out, and then find out why that wasn't correctly implemented either. Who's brilliant idea was it to accept election results over the same line which served the helpdesk? > Are you upset that you don't know the names of the employees who run that phone hotline system? Yes, you should be too.
  - elicash 7y ago
    > I definitely read that as the app is the way that results were reported That's my point. It's about how caucus managers tell the Iowa Democratic Party how many votes there were, for who, in each round. It has nothing to do with how people actually vote, which is done by walking into certain corners of the room and filling out pieces of paper. I want a comprehensive, independent audit of all of the things that went wrong, done by an entity that every single campaign would have veto power over selecting. I don't care to know the names of the people who built the phone system, personally, since it'd be part of my recommended audit, but have no problem with a rule that makes them public moving forward because why not. I don't like the idea of making the lives of developers miserable when this seems like a problem at EVERY LEVEL -- at the Iowa Dem Party, DNC, individual campaigns that didn't object, owners of this company, and sure, the developers, too.

elicash 7y ago

These aren't voting machines. "Involved in voting" is quite misleading. The app doesn't actually help with the voting part. They help in the calculation of delegates and the transmission. The votes are recorded on paper. This had a calculator tool (that actually functioned correctly) to count the delegates. The part the failed was the transmission of results to the Iowa Dem Party. The back-up (in addition to paper) was the phone hotline they normally use, but that got overloaded. Additionally, the overall caucus process for reporting -- unrelated to the tech -- was more convoluted this time around and the numbers didn't match for the different rounds of voting. This bigger problem caused the party to have to go back to the paper backups in order to verify results. That's what took so long. I'd be shocked if anybody actually disputed any of the results. Every campaign keeps their own records of as many precincts as possible and they're announced to everybody attending. Plus, there's the paper. And people record video of these events on their phones these days, too. In short, this wasn't a voting system, as you claim. It was a reporting system. What's the vendor they used for the phone reporting system? Are you upset that you don't know the names of the employees who run that phone hotline system? I'd be fine with a requirement for that for reporting systems, but nobody has ever asked for it previously for past elections so we shouldn't be shocked we don't have it now. Also, when you said it had "links to Clinton," I took it as you had a concern about that. Glad we're both in agreement that it's actually quite normal for vendors that Dem Party would and should use. It's normal - encouraged, even! - for Democratic vendors to work with Democratic candidates.

ghostoftiber 7y ago
> Organizers of the local meetings were supposed to use the app created by startup Shadow to report results from Iowa’s unusual voting system. In the caucuses, people wishing to support a candidate must be physically present at a meeting, where they stand in groups and wait to be counted. > To make that process more efficient, the Iowa Democratic Party gave local managers the Shadow app to input results. But results were delayed and backup measures — such as calling a hotline — also failed, according to the New York Times. From the article, I definitely read that as the app is the way that results were reported. I also read it as the phone and paper ballots were the backup systems. The app absolutely is involved in voting, even if it's not the most authoritative resource, nor should it be. This was discussed last year (for example) in: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/08/iowa-caucuses-nevada-voting-phone-2020-presidential-election-democratic-dnc-how-to-caucus-vote/1677812001/ https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2019/0... > What's the vendor they used for the phone reporting system? Dunno, we should find out, and then find out why that wasn't correctly implemented either. Who's brilliant idea was it to accept election results over the same line which served the helpdesk? > Are you upset that you don't know the names of the employees who run that phone hotline system? Yes, you should be too.
- elicash 7y ago
  > I definitely read that as the app is the way that results were reported That's my point. It's about how caucus managers tell the Iowa Democratic Party how many votes there were, for who, in each round. It has nothing to do with how people actually vote, which is done by walking into certain corners of the room and filling out pieces of paper. I want a comprehensive, independent audit of all of the things that went wrong, done by an entity that every single campaign would have veto power over selecting. I don't care to know the names of the people who built the phone system, personally, since it'd be part of my recommended audit, but have no problem with a rule that makes them public moving forward because why not. I don't like the idea of making the lives of developers miserable when this seems like a problem at EVERY LEVEL -- at the Iowa Dem Party, DNC, individual campaigns that didn't object, owners of this company, and sure, the developers, too.