3 ms·

I don't think that's a better theory. The process may be 'bad' but it has been that way, and worked, for a long time. As far as we know, the new ingredient was

I don't think that's a better theory. The process may be 'bad' but it has been that way, and worked, for a long time. As far as we know, the new ingredient was the app.

jandrese 7y ago
There were some confounding factors, like an apparent day-of decision to require the caucuses to report the results of every vote cast, not just the last one. This led to considerably higher data requirements in precincts where multiple votes were necessary to reach consensus. The new requirements were apparently not reported to the staff until around noon on the day of the election. As anybody can tell you, nothing sinks projects faster than changing requirements late in the development cycle. The app also sucked for another reason. Lots of Iowa is rural and cell coverage can be spotty. The app was designed with the all too common assumption in this day and age that the Internet works everywhere.
- coredog64 7y ago
  The extra information has been known since 2016. Bernie (or his campaign) asked for it as a means of providing additional transparency into the process.
scottlamb 7y ago
> The process may be 'bad' but it has been that way, and worked, for a long time. The process has never worked. I attended a couple caucuses myself between becoming 17 [0] and leaving Iowa. I still hear about them from family. They have various flaws. The most severe one IMHO is that due to the time commitment, they only reflect the voice of die-hards and/or those with few responsibilities. That's true for choosing the candidates and even more so for choosing the platform. However, I imagine you mean this specific failure mode (unable to produce an authoritative count within X hours for some smallish X) is new. AFAIK, that's correct. I would love it if this failure inspires them to change to a standard primary process. Probably won't, though. [0] iirc you can participate if you will be 18 by the general election.
- neonate 7y ago
  Yes, I just meant that it has worked in the sense of reporting timely results. I agree there are other flaws with caucuses.
marcell 7y ago
FYI new reporting seems to be backing up this theory: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/upshot/iowa-caucuses-errors-results.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/upshot/iowa-caucuses-erro... Example of rule confusion: "No new voters are permitted to join the caucus after the first alignment. But in at least 70 precincts, more than 4 percent of the total, there are more tabulated total votes on final alignment than on first alignment."

I don't think that's a better theory. The process may be 'bad' but it has been that way, and worked, for a long time. As far as we know, the new ingredient was the app.

jandrese 7y ago

There were some confounding factors, like an apparent day-of decision to require the caucuses to report the results of every vote cast, not just the last one. This led to considerably higher data requirements in precincts where multiple votes were necessary to reach consensus. The new requirements were apparently not reported to the staff until around noon on the day of the election. As anybody can tell you, nothing sinks projects faster than changing requirements late in the development cycle. The app also sucked for another reason. Lots of Iowa is rural and cell coverage can be spotty. The app was designed with the all too common assumption in this day and age that the Internet works everywhere.

coredog64 7y ago
The extra information has been known since 2016. Bernie (or his campaign) asked for it as a means of providing additional transparency into the process.

scottlamb 7y ago

> The process may be 'bad' but it has been that way, and worked, for a long time. The process has never worked. I attended a couple caucuses myself between becoming 17 [0] and leaving Iowa. I still hear about them from family. They have various flaws. The most severe one IMHO is that due to the time commitment, they only reflect the voice of die-hards and/or those with few responsibilities. That's true for choosing the candidates and even more so for choosing the platform. However, I imagine you mean this specific failure mode (unable to produce an authoritative count within X hours for some smallish X) is new. AFAIK, that's correct. I would love it if this failure inspires them to change to a standard primary process. Probably won't, though. [0] iirc you can participate if you will be 18 by the general election.

neonate 7y ago
Yes, I just meant that it has worked in the sense of reporting timely results. I agree there are other flaws with caucuses.

marcell 7y ago

FYI new reporting seems to be backing up this theory: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/upshot/iowa-caucuses-errors-results.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/upshot/iowa-caucuses-erro... Example of rule confusion: "No new voters are permitted to join the caucus after the first alignment. But in at least 70 precincts, more than 4 percent of the total, there are more tabulated total votes on final alignment than on first alignment."