Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #401  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:38 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sterling Archer View Post
To caucus you have to be there right at 7pm. Not sometime in a 4 hour window, but you have to arrive before 7 to get checked in, then you have to sit and listen to a speech, some local party votes like who is going to be the local chair and secretary and some local resolutions that they want to add to the party platform. Then all the splitting and counting and realigning. It all takes 1-2 hours, at least. It is not a system that is easy to participate in for people who work evenings, or have young children, or are elderly or disabled.
Besides people who have a really good reason not to go to that effort, like last few categories, it's pretty unsurprising to me that many people without really good excuses like that wouldn't show up either. I mean politically activist people can fault them, but most people don't care enough about politics to go to much trouble (spouting off on the internet from the comfort of home isn't trouble). One might interpret political apathy in the US generally in a good or a bad way I suppose.

I think you could as easily be surprised how high general IA turnout is as how low it is. But, the Democrats just approximately matching 2016 IA turnout, somewhat less than 2008 level, is hard to interpret as good for them.

Last edited by Corry El; 02-07-2020 at 03:40 PM.
  #402  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:09 PM
zimaane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: washington, dc
Posts: 1,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I agree. And screwups are part of any human process and error checking is as well. Again, it would seem like you could find 1,700 sixth graders in Iowa who could do this job well.

Further, it is almost like a "this is why we can't have nice things" argument to eliminate the caucus system. Sure, a primary would be easier, but I think it is excellent in a democracy that any citizen has a public platform to stand up and attempt to persuade his fellow citizens to vote for his/her preferred candidate.

Now, it wouldn't be feasible nationwide, but I like having this one little slice of it still existing. Just because you cannot find enough people to count it right is not a reason to get rid of caucuses but a reason to improve our education system.

Regarding the Buttigieg coin flip posted earlier. If I was Warren's representative, I would have been raising holy hell. How come nobody said anything?
Nevada's caucus is similar in the broad outlines, although different in some of the details. We'll see how it goes.
  #403  
Old 02-07-2020, 07:27 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimaane View Post
Nevada's caucus is similar in the broad outlines, although different in some of the details. We'll see how it goes.
I think the two main differences are:

One, after the first round of voting, if your candidate doesn't have at least 15%, you have to switch to one that does, or leave that caucus;

Two, the national convention delegates will be based on "head count" instead of "state delegate equivalents" (for district-level delegates, "the national convention delegates elected at the district level shall be allocated in proportion to the percentage of the caucus vote won in that district by each preference at the first determining step, except that preferences falling below a 15% threshold shall not be awarded any delegates or alternates"; a similar rule applies to the statewide-level delegates).
  #404  
Old 02-09-2020, 01:42 AM
Saint Cad is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
I think the two main differences are:

One, after the first round of voting, if your candidate doesn't have at least 15%, you have to switch to one that does, or leave that caucus;
Couldn't people who support non-viable candidates combine behind one or two candidates to make them viable?
  #405  
Old 02-09-2020, 12:06 PM
Raskolnikov is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: mommy's basement
Posts: 108
Remember:

If Trump winning
Russia is rigging

If Pete is behind
Results go offline!!!
  #406  
Old 02-09-2020, 12:45 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Couldn't people who support non-viable candidates combine behind one or two candidates to make them viable?
Not in Nevada. According to the Nevada State Delegate Selection Plan:
"Upon the conclusion of the announcement of results from the initial alignment, if and only if, there are any non-viable preference groups, the eligible caucus attendees in those groups will have up to another fifteen (15) minutes to realign with a viable group."
  #407  
Old 02-09-2020, 01:28 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Couldn't people who support non-viable candidates combine behind one or two candidates to make them viable?
Nope, I think thatís designed to prevent so many fringe candidates and the caucus could go on all night.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #408  
Old 02-09-2020, 02:32 PM
Steven_Maven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Chicago north suburbs
Posts: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
This was not an organized effort by the Republican party.
So youíre saying that by pure coincidence thousands / hundreds / dozens of individuals independently decided to repeatedly call the number for the purpose of preventing legitimate calls to get through, and that none of them had partisan motivation?
  #409  
Old 02-09-2020, 02:45 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven_Maven View Post
So youíre saying that by pure coincidence thousands / hundreds / dozens of individuals independently decided to repeatedly call the number for the purpose of preventing legitimate calls to get through, and that none of them had partisan motivation?
I think he's saying it wasn't the Republican Party behind it.

Which is likely true but also irrelevant: The issue isn't who the bad actors were who caused the disruption, it's whether the disruption itself is a valid explanation for what transpired. As Rachel Maddow pointed out a few days ago, it definitely had the desired affect and makes it that much more difficult to wholly write it off as Democrat incompetence.
  #410  
Old 02-09-2020, 05:03 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,396

The Moderator Speaks


John Stamos Left Ear-

You were banned from this thread until 2/11/20. Yet here you are.

This is a warning for disobeying moderator instructions. You are also banned from Politics and Elections and Great Debates for one month. You may return 3/9/20.

Posting in these fora before then may earn you a suspension from the SDMB as a whole.
  #411  
Old 02-09-2020, 06:04 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Nope, I think thatís designed to prevent so many fringe candidates and the caucus could go on all night.
Pretty sure under Iowa rules supporters of nonviable first round candidates could join together to lift one of them to viability in the second round. There are only two rounds no matter what, so there's no question of it going on all night (at least the actual voting won't...the vote counting, on the other hand...). I don't know if other caucus States might work differently.
  #412  
Old 02-09-2020, 06:33 PM
Steven_Maven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Chicago north suburbs
Posts: 95
Regardless of the cause, this debacle is proof positive that any election software is unreliable without some sort of verifiable back-up (such as paper ballots).
  #413  
Old 02-09-2020, 08:49 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,628
Bernie fucking every man for himself psycho motherfuckers, brace your selves.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...nders-n1132531
"The Iowa Democratic Party on Sunday allocated delegates based on the results of last weekís Iowa caucuses, giving former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg the largest delegate count, followed closely by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt."
  #414  
Old 02-10-2020, 03:37 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Pretty sure under Iowa rules supporters of nonviable first round candidates could join together to lift one of them to viability in the second round. There are only two rounds no matter what, so there's no question of it going on all night (at least the actual voting won't...the vote counting, on the other hand...). I don't know if other caucus States might work differently.
Yes, that's how it worked in Iowa. I was confused about this afterwards, so I checked the instruction manual and it says it's allowed. (I also saw a caucus site on TV where people had been told it was not allowed, which is the kind of error that, if it persisted and affected the outcome, can't be fixed in any kind of "recount" scenario.)

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 02-10-2020 at 03:39 AM.
  #415  
Old 02-10-2020, 10:31 AM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Pretty sure under Iowa rules supporters of nonviable first round candidates could join together to lift one of them to viability in the second round. There are only two rounds no matter what, so there's no question of it going on all night (at least the actual voting won't...the vote counting, on the other hand...). I don't know if other caucus States might work differently.
Correct.
In Iowa, after the first round, voters of nonviable candidates could either leave, switch to another candidate, whether or not viable, or try and talk voters of other nonviable candidates into switching to their candidate. (A new rule prevents anybody voting for a viable candidate in the first round from switching.) After the second round, anybody still voting for a nonviable candidate is, for all intents and purposes, ignored; they cannot switch to a viable candidate.

In Nevada, anybody voting for a nonviable candidate after the first round has to either switch to a viable candidate or leave.

The only other caucus state is Wyoming (some territories use them), and that state uses a preferential ballot system. The way I interpret the rules, each voter lists up to five candidates in preference order, and each time a candidate does not have at least 15% of the total, that candidate is erased from all of the ballots, any now-blank ballots are discarded, and the rest are given to the candidates at the top of that ballot; repeat as many times as necessary until all remaining candidates have at least 15%.


Speaking of Iowa, the party just released its national delegate counts: Buttigieg 14, Sanders 12, Warren 8, Biden 6, and Klobuchar 1. At first, I couldn't figure out how their numbers differ from mine (I have Buttigieg with 13 and Biden with 7), especially as our SDE totals match (although I am still convinced that the listed satellite SDEs are incorrect - every satellite precinct in a district where 20 or fewer people showed up should have the same total SDEs, but this is not the case), but I think I figured it out; apparently, they use a different rounding rule for the national delegates than for the county delegates.
For the county delegates, if, because of rounding, a precinct's calculated number delegates is fewer than the number it actually has, then the candidate(s) closest to rounding up would get the delegate(s) (e.g. a candidate with 1.4 delegates would get one over a candidate with 2.3).
However, apparently (I say that because it is not in the rules, although it is in the Wyoming rules), if the calcualted number of national delegates in a district is fewer than the number it has, then the district's winner gets the additional delegate.
In District 1, the seven delegates are initially counted as Buttigieg 2.12, Sanders 2.08, Biden 1.45, and Warren 1.35, but when those are rounded to 2-2-1-1, that is only six delegates. Biden has the largest fraction among the "rounded down" candidates (0.45 to Warren's 0.35), but as Buttigieg won the district, he gets the eighth delegate instead of Biden.
  #416  
Old 02-10-2020, 10:39 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,585
Now the D's say it would be wrong to correct incorrect math: "The incorrect math on the worksheets must not be changed."

https://www.chicagotribune.com/elect...m2m-story.html
  #417  
Old 02-10-2020, 10:57 AM
Saint Cad is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Now the D's say it would be wrong to correct incorrect math: "The incorrect math on the worksheets must not be changed."

https://www.chicagotribune.com/elect...m2m-story.html
"Hey, let's make a bad situation worse."
  #418  
Old 02-10-2020, 10:58 AM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
However, apparently (I say that because it is not in the rules, although it is in the Wyoming rules), if the calcualted number of national delegates in a district is fewer than the number it has, then the district's winner gets the additional delegate.
In District 1, the seven delegates are initially counted as Buttigieg 2.12, Sanders 2.08, Biden 1.45, and Warren 1.35, but when those are rounded to 2-2-1-1, that is only six delegates. Biden has the largest fraction among the "rounded down" candidates (0.45 to Warren's 0.35), but as Buttigieg won the district, he gets the eighth delegate instead of Biden.
It turns out that the Delegate Selection Rules - specifically, Rule 14.D Step 5 - say to use the fractions, in which case, Biden should have 2 delegates in District 1 (and 7 overall) and Buttigieg should also have 2 in District 1 (and 13 overall).
  #419  
Old 02-10-2020, 12:54 PM
amarinth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Emerald City, WA, USA
Posts: 10,024
I wonder how many of the caucus captains once asked "when will I have to use fractions in real life?"
  #420  
Old 02-10-2020, 01:54 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,590
The Sanders campaign requests a partial recanvass just before the deadline. Partial recanvass does not appear to be a thing that anyone is allowed to request.
  #421  
Old 02-10-2020, 01:59 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
The Sanders campaign requests a partial recanvass just before the deadline. Partial recanvass does not appear to be a thing that anyone is allowed to request.
Silly. Pandering to the whiniest f his base. The story is over and picking up an extra delegate or two isn't going to mean jack. All your getting is a whiner label for your troubles.
  #422  
Old 02-10-2020, 06:42 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,740
Ugh, Jesse Jackson is joining in on the Bernie should have won shit. https://twitter.com/revjjackson/stat...221156353?s=21

This idiot KNOWS how caucuses work. I just wish he knew how to accomplish anything besides how to divide the party and draw attention to himself. It does look like this isn’t getting much attention in the media who I think is ready to move on from Iowa with New Hampshire tomorrow.

This is really starting to look like 2016, it’s always rigged against Bernie when he loses.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #423  
Old 02-10-2020, 06:52 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Ugh, Jesse Jackson is joining in on the Bernie should have won shit. https://twitter.com/revjjackson/stat...221156353?s=21

This idiot KNOWS how caucuses work. I just wish he knew how to accomplish anything besides how to divide the party and draw attention to himself. It does look like this isnít getting much attention in the media who I think is ready to move on from Iowa with New Hampshire tomorrow.

This is really starting to look like 2016, itís always rigged against Bernie when he loses.
That looks like a pretty reasonable tweet to me. The Iowa caucuses are pretty dumb.
  #424  
Old 02-10-2020, 06:57 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
That looks like a pretty reasonable tweet to me. The Iowa caucuses are pretty dumb.
They are dumb, but ripping at the Bernie got screwed wound doesnít help.

Letís get through this damn election and then figure out how to handle Iowa and caucuses going forward. Plus, theyíll be Republican contests in 2024 so I assume both parties would want to address caucuses and does Iowa go first?
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #425  
Old 02-10-2020, 07:02 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
They are dumb, but ripping at the Bernie got screwed wound doesnít help.

Letís get through this damn election and then figure out how to handle Iowa and caucuses going forward. Plus, theyíll be Republican contests in 2024 so I assume both parties would want to address caucuses and does Iowa go first?
Sounds fine, but all Jackson did was point out an example of Iowa dumbness. He didn't spread any conspiracy theories or anything -- he just said the equivalent of "this is dumb".
  #426  
Old 02-10-2020, 07:58 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Sounds fine, but all Jackson did was point out an example of Iowa dumbness. He didn't spread any conspiracy theories or anything -- he just said the equivalent of "this is dumb".
And if he didnít put the numbers in his tweet, I would have been fine. Jackson is pretty irrelevant these days anyway and hopefully the Bernie bros are a bit calm since it looks like a win for Bernie tomorrow.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017