3 ms·

> 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,

> 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

> 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.