DesMoines Register Editorial: Something Smells in the Democratic Party (Caucus results)

[HerbChestnut]

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/caucus/2016/02/03/editorial-something-smells-democratic-party/79777580/

Once again the world is laughing at Iowa. Late-night comedians and social media mavens are having a field day with jokes about missing caucusgoers and coin flips.

That’s fine. We can take ribbing over our quirky process. But what we can’t stomach is even the whiff of impropriety or error.

What happened Monday night at the Democratic caucuses was a debacle, period. Democracy, particularly at the local party level, can be slow, messy and obscure. But the refusal to undergo scrutiny or allow for an appeal reeks of autocracy.

The Iowa Democratic Party must act quickly to assure the accuracy of the caucus results, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I think this is a reasonable argument. When the two candidates are separated by just 4 delegates out of over 1600 total there should absolutely be some kind of confirmation process. Why the Democratic Party refuses to go over the results just to make sure there were no errors is beyond me. My guess is it's just to save face. They don't want the result to flip like what happened to the Republicans in 2012. It would make them look silly.

[Jarqui]

1. You can probably tell how sinister this is by how hard they fight it

If they really dig their heels in, they're probably hiding something.

If I'm the Sanders campaign, I want answers. I'd continue to push.

If the Clinton campaign has nothing to hide, they'll support Sanders's call for answers. If they remain quiet, the bad aroma might get worse ...

If they find the Clinton campaign was up to no good, which wouldn't exactly surprise me after their dirty tricks in 2008, the American people should know about that.

[HerbChestnut]

3. I agree

And there's an equal chance that the results remain the same or Hillary even improves her lead. This just doesn't sit right.

[Jarqui]

6. Yep, the Clinton campaign may well be squeaky clean

I'd add that if the Iowa Dem party really messed up, then Iowans should know that.

Why would they want to leave it with a cloud over the result?

It's an election. Everything should be in the open.

[Fawke Em]

38. Funny story

My husband (who also Feels the Bern, but not like I do. I simply adore Bernie. He just likes him) begged me not to get angry on election night. He was afraid if Bernie lost, I might melt down.

I told him I was fine. I expected a toss up.

Then, Hillary declared herself the winner and ran out like a scalded cat.

Guess who got angry?

Not me!

My husband hurled a pillow at the screen and said, "What right does she have with delegates still out in Des Moines to declare herself the winner? Ugh. Curse, expletive, etc."

I just shook my head and poured another drink.

[dixiegrrrrl]

62. Drink..what a good idea.

I usually don't but I got so caught up in the Iowa caucus I may resort to adult beverages.

[Betty Karlson]

11. Up to no good? Clinton? Naaawwww, why would we ever think that?

(Except it's the only thing she has been consistent on.)

[yeoman6987]

35. I agree.

But also what happened to the data breach investigation? It seems to have fallen off the earth. I wish sanders would continue fighting that.

[Jarqui]

39. So do I

They can afford to just stick a lawyer on it, grab on to the DNC's pant leg and not let go while snarling away. Maybe apply a little media heat.

I suspect there was a lot more funny business with Sanders' data than Clinton's.

[BeanMusical]

81. +1

[NorthCarolina]

2. Did anyone really ever think the establishment would play fair when faced

with a candidate like Bernie Sanders?

The odds that the Iowa caucus was compromised by their shenanigans is far more likely than not. I think that should be pretty obvious to just about everyone.

[Jarqui]

40. I'll admit some naivety

I expected a little bias but this has been so flagrant with the DNC, it's breathtaking how brash they are about it. It's corrupt and they don't care.

[NorthCarolina]

41. Perhaps they sense a threat to their gravy-train.

eom

[Jarqui]

50. I suspect that's a key part of it: Jan 20, 2016 "No job for you today

in this administration!"

And part may be that they see Sanders as an insurgent - not one of their own. It doesn't matter how much his ideas line up with the Dems - he's not one of them because he spend all this time on the Dem party.

He doesn't just need a revolution to get the things he wants done. He needs a revolution to get him elected. I'm happily serving that cause.

[merrily]

4. "They don't want the result to flip"

[FlatBaroque]

5. The Democratic party

is a corrupt organization that is no different than any criminal racket. I wonder if would have been better had Bernie run independently

[SoapBox]

10. Yup.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

29. Then why are you on Democratic Underground, a website that supports Democrats and

the Democratic Party?

[redwitch]

30. My Party Love it or Leave it?

I am a life long Democrat and when my party behaves badly I will say so. Just like when my country behaves badly.

[840high]

32. .^that

[cascadiance]

63. That's like asking us why we want to live in this country even if we hate its corruption...

We hate the party's corruption, but love what it stood for when it was founded, just in the same way we love our country the way it was founded, but not a lot of the corrupt CANCER it has in it that is screwing over so many Americans here!

[tularetom]

76. Some of us can remember when the party actually stood for something

Instead of reinventing itself as the slightly less corporate version of the other party.

[Purveyor]

7. Thanks for posting. k&r eom

[TwilightGardener]

8. This is what I've been saying. It's just way too close and there are too many instances

of error and confusion and obvious miscounting. Who knows, maybe the IA Dem Party will suddenly find a bunch of new numbers for Hillary and give her a real victory instead of one with an asterisk?

[SoapBox]

9. It's as though it's a joke...

And not taken serious.

I look at the election of the President of the United States of America...as deadly serious.

[mountain grammy]

12. Our party is in disarray.

A result, in my opinion, of trying to be more like Republicans.

[Gregorian]

13. By the way, this is the paper which endorsed Hillary Clinton.

[mikehiggins]

14. I don't know. Is the Register a stone hard core liberal paper?

Might this editorial simply be another attempt to damage the Iowa Dems?

Not that there aren't questions. Still, I wonder if they are a legitimate source criticism us?

[JonLeibowitz]

17. Well, they did endorse Sec. Clinton.

Whether that is evidence they are biased towards Repubs depends very much on whether you view Clinton as a conservative democrat or not. It is all a matter of perspective.

[rurallib]

74. They are owned by Gannett

since being bought out about 25 years ago they have gone through various personalities.
As an Iowan I put little stock in what they say anymore.

As I was growing up they were one of the best papers in the country.

[retrowire]

15. Andy McGuire simply said, "no" lmao nt

[mhatrw]

44. "No, We Can't!" now applies to election transparency and fairness as well! nt

[dreamnightwind]

56. And then went out to polish her HRC 2016 license plate

https://twitter.com/bencjacobs/status/355399741116399616

[retrowire]

57. She probably did. nt

[progressoid]

80. Holy crap. Is that real?

[dreamnightwind]

82. yes it is

[panader0]

16. k and r

[TryLogic]

18. Hillary claimed victory. They cannot risk making her look like a phony spinmeister. Ha.

[liberal from boston]

20. NH Primary

I do not understand why the DNC will not release the total votes that Bernie & Hillary received--only the delegate count. The Republicans showed individual vote accounts.

[LibDemAlways]

23. More transparency is needed. If the Dem.

establishment sticks to its guns and refuses to release the figures, assume they favored Bernie.

[rhett o rick]

69. Her huge victory amounted to only 23 national delegate to the 21 that Sanders got. Claiming

victory would be like claiming a victory because you have a slight lead after the first lap of the Indy 500.

[Yurovsky]

79. But my concern are the super delegates...

that the Clinton/Wall Street mega corp purchased and put in place long before the first vote was to be cast. The system is clearly rigged, with the Clintons having posited their operatives on the levers of power throughout the party apparatus.

The only way to defeat the scourge of corporate control of the Democrtaic party is by overwhelming them at the ballot box. We cannot allow the fraud, deception, and outright thievery of the corporate power structure to continue to control this party and this nation.

It's Bernie or indentured servitude to the corporate masters. I'm sure those that already have it made are just fine with HRC winning, because they'll continue to crush the working class and poor behind a façade of compassion.

Rise up people. Stop taking this shit.

[WillyT]

19. K & R !!!

[LibDemAlways]

21. If Bernie had won by the slimmest of margins,

it would be safe to assume a recount would already be under way -- initiated by the Clinton campaign with no big objection from Bernie. Because Hillary came out slightly ahead, expect to hear "sour grapes," "time to move on" etc. if Bernie should press the issue.

[SheilaT]

25. What do you mean "expect to hear"?

Ever since Hillary announced her victory it's been the prevailing theme.

[mhatrw]

46. Bush vs. Gore redux

[Deny and Shred]

54. Yes, and prolcaimed proudly

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1120492

[Iwillnevergiveup]

22. Maybe it's time

to dump this antiquated procedure. Iowa could still primary first since that seems to be an issue.

[AlbertCat]

27. to dump this antiquated procedure.

Federal elections (and their primaries) should all be carried out the same way in every state.

And when the actual election come, it should be the same...the same methods of voting with the same ratio of voters to voting machines and the same ways of counting votes...everything.... the same for each state.

[mhatrw]

47. I say get rid of all voting machines. Just of what Canada does. Fraud is much harder there. nt

[Kip Humphrey]

24. Seems the Third Way has taught Democrats how to run elections like republicons... how dismaying.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

26. "It would make them look silly."

I guess looking crooked is better.

[cab67]

28. There's not much to go over.

In this case, the Republicans do things better than we do - caucus-goers actually write the names of candidates down on ballots. There's something to recount if needed.

When you're dealing with a system in which volunteers count individuals in sometimes-crowded settings, there's going to be some sort of error. And there's no paper trail, other than the tallies.

The only way to fix this is to have a written-ballot system for the Democratic caucuses as well.

[mhatrw]

43. Spoken like James Baker. Clinton "won" only by rigging the caucus results.

And now you want to keep the bodies buried.

[cab67]

45. Not really the point I was making.

With no paper ballot system (or any kind of ballot system), there's no effective way to deal with error, intentional or otherwise.

[mhatrw]

48. There are paper records of the numbers of voters who showed up at each caucus for each candidate.

Do these numbers jibe with the numbers reported by Microsoft to Iowa's Democratic Party?

Only a cheater would be against a full and fair auditing.

[winter is coming]

49. I'm not sure the raw numbers are what went in the Microsoft app.

I had the impression that the raw numbers are recorded on paper, the calculations are done on paper, and the results are reported using the app (instead of phoning it in).

[mhatrw]

55. Fine. Then let's compare the paper numbers and paper calculations to what was reported to the app

and finally to the numbers the Iowan Democratic party used to award delegates.

Who, other than a cheater, would be against a full and fair audit?

[cab67]

59. the numbers are recorded

Unfortunately, the numbers are based on a count of people in the room. Democratic caucusgoers don't fill out ballots.

[cab67]

58. I didn't say I opposed it.

I'm only pointing out that because of the way the Iowa caucuses are operated, it won't help.

I would imagine the number of voters will match, whether there was something underhanded going on or not. Or it will come very close, anyway - with or without illicit activities, there will be a certain amount of error related to the way votes are counted by fallible (and unpaid) human beings.

There were 600 people in my precinct, roughly evenly divided between Clinton and Sanders, in a cafeteria intended for a much smaller number of high-schoolers. People were moving around, talking with each other (and not always paying attention), and socializing in general. The counts were made by volunteers. Just having someone move from one seat to another can muck things up. That's just reality.

At this point, unless any fraud that took place was of the Boss Tweed level of egregiousness, distinguishing human error from fraud will be impossible. I would also suppose that the numbers involved in any discrepancies will be small enough to make no real difference, no matter how close the results were.

Still, I am not opposed to an audit. I just don't think it will make any difference. If an audit takes place, and I'm wrong, I will admit my error in judgment.

What matters is the number of voters who supported one candidate or the other. And without a physical track record, there's no way double-check it. It's more important at this point to work toward changing the way the caucuses happen.

ADDED ON EDIT: At every caucus I've attended, the numbers were double- or triple-checked on the spot. This is what happened in my precinct on Monday - the number of people signed in was reported before we counted the number of voters supporting each candidate (or who wanted to be undeclared). We broke into groups, were counted, and these numbers were compared with the number of people signed in. They matched. The O'Malley and Undeclared groups were too small to support a delegate, so they were asked to realign for either Clinton or Sanders. (About half went one way, half the other.) After realignment, we were counted again, and these numbers were compared yet again with the number of sign-ins. They matched. This is how it works across the state. It's imperfect, but great care is taken to ensure an exact count.

I suspect the greater danger of error will be with the numbers aligned with a given candidate. This is why the moving-around issue could be a problem; the number of voters may be exact, but someone might be counted for one candidate while supporting another. This is why we need a ballot system.

[mhatrw]

72. I suspect that your experience was characteristic of the vast majority of precincts.

And I agree with your recommendation for paper ballots.

My questions are:

1) Are there any discrepancies between the double and triple checked precinct counts and numbers the Iowan Democratic party calculated total awarded delegate from its election database?

2) What was the raw number of supporters for each candidate before and after realignment?

[cab67]

73. on question 1:

I would suspect the answer to be somewhere between "no" and "very few." The counts were made on the spot and announced when made. Discrepancies would have been immediately apparent in most cases and challenged right away, regardless of which candidate seemed to benefit from the situation. Errors probably happened for the reasons I mentioned before, but substantial differences between the number of people who signed in and the total number of people supporting candidates would have been apparent before they were reported. Most mistakes would have amounted to random error and, in the end, gone both ways.

As for the second question - the number of votes for the candidates was cross-checked with the number of people signed in to the precinct each time, including after the realignment. In the case of my precinct, at least, it matched each time.

An audit wouldn't be a bad idea, but unless the malfeasance was beyond what we see amongst Republicans, it won't make much of a difference.

[left-of-center2012]

31. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said the DNC is neutral

[rhett o rick]

70. She also said that Clinton didn't promise her a great job in her administration. If you believe

that I have a bridge to sell you.

[Beacool]

33. Then get rid of the damn caucuses.

They are archaic and undemocratic in this modern age.

[rurallib]

75. Agreed.

but then Iowa would no longer be first in the nation.
That is big big bucks for Iowa. Did I say big bucks?

[JimDandy]

77. Let them have the first primary in the nation then.

I am sick to death of the caucus process. In every state I've lived and voted, the Dems have had this archaic, tedious process. It is non-democratic, non-inclusive and opaque--all of the things elections should not be in a democracy.

[in_cog_ni_to]

34. Ya think?

The Democratic establishment is corrupt to the core! Notice DNC/DWS/HRH/NO ONE ELSE FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT is calling for a review to make certain everything was on the up and up?

We all know why!

SUE THEM!

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[CharlotteVale]

37. It reeks of more than autocracy.

[Joe Chi Minh]

68. You got that right !

[mhatrw]

42. They aren't hiding the raw numbers to save face. They rigged this "win" for Clinton.

This is license plate of the "Just Say No" to transparency and fairness Iowan Democratic party chair:

[kcdoug1]

51. if this is the kind of crap

the DNC is going to pull, I'd say Bernie screw 'em run as an Independent as get yourself as far away from the DNC as possible. I'm so glad I got the DNC out of my life, no donations no hlep what so ever from me until DWS is GONE!

[RichVRichV]

71. Nah, all running as an independent does is split the vote and ensure a Republican president.

It's better he runs as a Democrat, beats them at their own game (straight up), and then changes the party for the better. We all come out ahead that way.

[cui bono]

53. k n r

[billhicks76]

60. Whoa...Clinton Is A Cheat!

[Uncle Joe]

61. And this is the same paper that endorsed Hillary prior to the caucus so if they're calling for a

recount to verify the results that should carry some extra weight.


Thanks for the thread, HerbChestnut.

[valerief]

64. They want Hillary to get her donations from the boost of her apparent win.

Because they want Hillary to win.

[EndElectoral]

65. One wonders if the results were reversed whether they'd go over those results.

[winter is coming]

66. This one doesn't wonder. There would be loud outcries among all the Clinton surrogates. n/t

[eridani]

78. IMO, they should. Any outcome that close needs extra vetting n/y

[Joe Chi Minh]

67. Save face ? That will be the day, when a politician of any stripe worries about saving 'face',

particularly when a lot more than a temporary embarrassment is at stake - like an election.