Iowa Democratic party completes review: 5 incorrect tallies out of 14 contested results.

[pnwmom]

Sanders made slight gains as a result of 3 of the corrections; and Sanders had slight losses in 2 of the corrections.

The final overall result hasn't changed.

http://iowademocrats.org/iowa-democratic-caucus-results-updated-after-idp-completes-review/

Iowa Democratic Caucus Results Updated After IDP Completes Review

Josh Levitt February 7th, 2016 Posted In: News, Press Release

Des Moines—Over the past week, to ensure the accuracy of our results the Iowa Democratic Party worked with the Sanders campaign, the Clinton campaign and local party leadership to review results from 14 precinct caucuses.


These follow-up reviews were in addition to the work we did on caucus night, where we worked with the campaign representatives in our tabulation room and our precinct and county chairs to resolve any issues that arose from the 1,681 Democratic precincts.

We reviewed the 14 precincts on a case-by-case basis, and in each instance reached out to our precinct and county chairs on the ground for a full accounting of the results. Nine of the 14 precincts were confirmed to be correct as reported on caucus night, while five instances of reporting errors were found:

Marion County, Knoxville 3 Precinct:

Reported As: 5 county convention delegates for Clinton, 4 county convention delegates for Sanders

Confirmed As: 4 county convention delegates for Clinton, 5 county convention delegates for Sanders

Net Change: Sanders gains 0.13 state delegate equivalents (SDEs); Clinton loses 0.13 SDEs

Woodbury County, 43 Oto/Oto Township Precinct:

Reported As: 1 county convention delegate for Clinton

Confirmed As: 1 county convention delegate for Sanders

Net Change: Sanders gains 0.15 SDEs, Clinton loses 0.15 SDEs

Osceola County, Ashton Precinct:

Reported As: 3 county convention delegates for O’Malley, 4 county convention delegates for Sanders

Confirmed As: 4 county convention delegates for O’Malley, 3 county convention delegates fro Sanders

Net Change: O’Malley gains 0.0167 SDEs, Sanders loses 0.0167 SDEs

Story County, Sherman Township Precinct:

Reported As: 1 county convention delegate for Sanders

Confirmed As: 1 county convention delegate for Clinton

Net Change: Clinton gains 0.23 SDEs, Sanders loses 0.23 SDEs

Poweshiek County, 1st Ward Grinnell:

Reported As: 18 county convention delegates for Sanders, 8 county convention delegates for Clinton

Confirmed As: 19 county convention delegates for Sanders, 7 county convention delegates for Clinton

Net Change: Sanders gains 0.072 SDEs, Clinton loses 0.072 SDEs

Total net Change:

Sanders gains 0.1053 SDEs

Clinton loses 0.122 SDEs

O’Malley gains 0.0167 SDEs

Updated Results:

Clinton: 700.47 SDEs (–0.122 SDEs) 49.84%

Sanders: 696.92 SDEs (+0.1053 SDEs) 49.59%

O’Malley: 7.63 SDEs (+0.0167 SDEs) 0.54%

Uncommitted: 0.46 SDEs (unchanged) 0.03%

[jeff47]

1. So the party was only wrong 37% of the time so far.

Clearly, 37% error rate means no further review is necessary.

[libdem4life]

2. Oh, it wasn't correct, but it won't change the totals...is like a husband and wife voting for

opposing candidates, so decide not to go vote because they will cancel each other out. Neither position is democracy.

We vote, we expect the results to be correct, and if they seem not to be...whether it makes a difference or not is Totally Irrelevant.

[pnwmom]

3. You're missing the forest because you're staring at the twigs.

This is a system where, in the same district, one delegate might represent 10 people, or might represent 30 people. And a delegate in another district could represent 50 people.

And where many voters are excluded because they would need to vote absentee.

Unfairness is built into the caucus system.

[libdem4life]

4. In spite of the put down...doesn't become anyone or produce an expert. It should be done

in any case. I used an analogy. Does that redeem my "Twig-staring" analogy on your part? LOL.

PS. We don't disagree so I don't even get the rebuttal.

[pnwmom]

5. Sorry, libdem4life, I didn't understand your post. I am so sick of hearing people here

arguing about the importance of counting the angels on the head of a pin.

I'm sure you'll know what I mean.

[libdem4life]

6. I hear you ... Peace. :)

[DanTex]

7. Wait, so the errors were distributed between the candidates the way you would expect

according to random chance! Mindboggling!

[pnwmom]

8. Yup, that's about it. n/t

[DanTex]

9. It's kinda funny how these conspiracies devolve. First the coin tossing, now this.