4 ms·
That's just silly. The process has a lot of faults, but they're mostly around their inclusiveness. If anything, the fact that a bunch of people can visibly see
by purephase 7y ago
That's just silly. The process has a lot of faults, but they're mostly around their inclusiveness. If anything, the fact that a bunch of people can visibly see the results of their respective caucuses, can report (e.g. tweet) on them real-time means that the ability to manipulate them is much, much harder.
Picture it, there's 100 people in a room who all have to move themselves around to their respective candidates and people count them and shout out the numbers.
All of the candidates are represented (they're reporting the numbers) and can hear the same numbers, all of the voters can hear them too.
It's messy, but it's probably one of the most difficult systems to "hack" in terms of real numbers since so many people know the results immediately.
- marcell 7y agoI don't think the hacking malicious. People just make mistakes. Random example: if candidate is below the viability threshold, that group is supposed to disband and join another group. You could have a mistake where, on the 2nd round, two non-viable groups merge and form a viable group. For example, maybe Biden is at 14% and Klobuchar is at 2%. Under rules, those groups are both non-viable. But you could easily see a mistake where the caucus operators allow the 2% Klobuchar group to "merge" with the Biden group.