# Iowa Caucus Discussion **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 4, 2020, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465 "2020-02-04T03:01:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2020, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/361 "2020-02-09T17:45:18Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > 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.”_ ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2020, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/362 "2020-02-09T18:28:19Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Couldn’t people who support non-viable candidates combine behind one or two candidates to make them viable? Nope, I think that’s designed to prevent so many fringe candidates and the caucus could go on all night. ---
**Author:** ![Steven\_Maven](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steven_maven/32/3272_2.png) [@Steven\_Maven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steven_Maven)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2020, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/363 "2020-02-09T19:32:01Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > This was not an organized effort by the Republican party. So you’re 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? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2020, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/364 "2020-02-09T19:45:59Z")
> [@Steven\_Maven](#): > > So you’re 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](https://www.politicususa.com/2020/02/06/rachel-maddow-warns-that-trump-supporters-are-trying-to-derail-democratic-primary-elections.html) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2020, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/365 "2020-02-09T22:03:36Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2020, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/366 "2020-02-09T23:04:08Z")
> [@dalej42](#): > > Nope, I think that’s 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. ---
**Author:** ![Steven\_Maven](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steven_maven/32/3272_2.png) [@Steven\_Maven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steven_Maven)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2020, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/367 "2020-02-09T23:33:28Z")
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). ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2020, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/368 "2020-02-10T01:49:49Z")
Bernie fucking every man for himself psycho motherfuckers, brace your selves. > **[Iowa officially gives Buttigieg the largest delegate count, followed closely...](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/iowa-officially-gives-buttigieg-largest-delegate-count-followed-closely-sanders-n1132531)** > > The decision comes even though the results are rife with potential errors and inconsistencies. NBC News has not called a winner in the race. “The Iowa Democratic Party on Sunday [allocated delegates based on the results](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-primary-elections/delegate-count?icid=election_results) of last week’s [Iowa caucuses](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/nbc-news-review-iowa-caucus-vote-finds-potential-errors-inconsistencies-n1132011), giving former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg the largest delegate count, followed closely by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.” ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2020, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/369 "2020-02-10T08:37:31Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > 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.) ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2020, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/370 "2020-02-10T15:31:51Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2020, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/371 "2020-02-10T15:39:21Z")
Now the D’s say it would be \*wrong \*to correct incorrect math: “The incorrect math on the worksheets must not be changed.” > **[Iowa Democrats won’t correct errors on caucus tally sheets, emails show](https://www.chicagotribune.com/election-2020/ct-nw-nyt-iowa-caucus-errors-20200209-vun7qmw54rdx5hitwm4zrg3m2m-story.html)** > > Internal emails reveal that the party will not correct even blatant errors in the official handwritten tally sheets from individual precincts. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/09/us/politics/iowa-caucuses-democrats.html ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2020, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/372 "2020-02-10T15:57:20Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Now the D’s say it would be \*wrong \*to correct incorrect math: “The incorrect math on the worksheets must not be changed.” > > [Iowa Democrats won’t correct errors on caucus tally sheets, emails show – Chicago Tribune](https://www.chicagotribune.com/election-2020/ct-nw-nyt-iowa-caucus-errors-20200209-vun7qmw54rdx5hitwm4zrg3m2m-story.html) “Hey, let’s make a bad situation worse.” ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2020, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/373 "2020-02-10T15:58:58Z")
> [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > 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). ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2020, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/374 "2020-02-10T17:54:32Z")
I wonder how many of the caucus captains once asked “when will I have to use fractions in real life?” ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2020, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/375 "2020-02-10T18:54:59Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2020, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/376 "2020-02-10T18:59:10Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2020, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/377 "2020-02-10T23:42:36Z")
Ugh, Jesse Jackson is joining in on the Bernie should have won shit. [https://twitter.com/revjjackson/status/1226950774221156353?s=21](https://twitter.com/revjjackson/status/1226950774221156353?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. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2020, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/378 "2020-02-10T23:52:58Z")
> [@dalej42](#): > > Ugh, Jesse Jackson is joining in on the Bernie should have won shit. [https://twitter.com/revjjackson/status/1226950774221156353?s=21](https://twitter.com/revjjackson/status/1226950774221156353?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. That looks like a pretty reasonable tweet to me. The Iowa caucuses are pretty dumb. ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2020, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/379 "2020-02-10T23:57:12Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > 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 doesn’t help. Let’s get through this damn election and then figure out how to handle Iowa and caucuses going forward. Plus, they’ll be Republican contests in 2024 so I assume both parties would want to address caucuses and does Iowa go first? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2020, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/380 "2020-02-11T00:02:46Z")
> [@dalej42](#): > > They are dumb, but ripping at the Bernie got screwed wound doesn’t help. > > Let’s get through this damn election and then figure out how to handle Iowa and caucuses going forward. Plus, they’ll 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”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465.md?page=20)