|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 05 2020 03:09 Velr wrote:
I still don't get it.
Afaik the counting went fine, just the sending not?
So after you realise your app is crap, why does it take a day to resolve this?
We do this in Switzerland with minimal technological help every 3 months for far more votes... There are hookups from time to time but never something truely major.
Lack of centralized funding and regulation is the long story short. When you let people be shitty at something, they generally are.
|
It wasn’t the app or the counting, it was the process of aligning the votes with the delegate count, the rules of which changed before this season’s caucus. That’s the locus of the discrepancy.
|
On February 05 2020 03:09 Velr wrote:
I still don't get it.
Afaik the counting went fine, just the sending not?
So after you realise your app is crap, why does it take a day to resolve this?
We do this in Switzerland with minimal technological help every 3 months for far more votes... There are hookups from time to time but never something truely major.
The electronic system fucked up in my canton late last year. There were two seats, one was clearly going to the socialist and the other was close between the liberal and the CVP. The liberal was announced a clear winner for most of the day then they noticed that something was wrong, it stalled for hours, then the liberal won but with something like a margin of 100 votes. The CVP demanded a recount and it was denied (lol).
|
But.. You got the votes. So, just do the math "by hand"?
|
|
|
On February 04 2020 23:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2020 23:22 Introvert wrote:
actually if memory serves electronic voting was a big push, particularly by Democrats, after Florida 2000. funny that. Because the Supreme Court decided that marking your preference on a paper ballot didn’t count as a vote for Gore if the perforations weren’t sufficiently perforated.
Wasnt really the point, the ballots were in fact badly designed and you'd rather avoid the problem all together. Similarly, bad design prob had an effect on the margin (but not result) of the FL Senate race in 2018.
***
Not sure what the metric for "high turnout is," think IA dem party said on pace for 2016, which is NOT what they were hoping for, and makes the screw up look worse.
|
On February 05 2020 03:13 farvacola wrote:
It wasn’t the app or the counting, it was the process of aligning the votes with the delegate count, the rules of which changed before this season’s caucus. That’s the locus of the discrepancy.
Can you link to that? What arrived in the brazillian press (and the 538 link above) were problems with reporting the results (that is, the app).
|
On February 04 2020 23:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2020 23:22 Introvert wrote:
actually if memory serves electronic voting was a big push, particularly by Democrats, after Florida 2000. funny that. Because the Supreme Court decided that marking your preference on a paper ballot didn’t count as a vote for Gore if the perforations weren’t sufficiently perforated.
The werid part of it irrc was they ruled that the ruling is essentially a one time deal and should not be taken into consideration for other rulings.
|
On February 05 2020 03:50 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2020 03:13 farvacola wrote:
It wasn’t the app or the counting, it was the process of aligning the votes with the delegate count, the rules of which changed before this season’s caucus. That’s the locus of the discrepancy. Can you link to that? What arrived in the brazillian press (and the 538 link above) were problems with reporting the results (that is, the app).
The reporting of results includes the “alignment” of votes with delegates, which is one of three forms of caucus results Iowa was supposed to report this season. Can’t find an article on that specifically, but the word is that the app was not used widely enough for it to have been a significant source of the problems. From what I can see, the new “three kinds of data reporting” rule is the culprit lol.
|
So a conservative court voted to get the conservative in. Democracy 101.
I was old enough to kinda understand it at the time, it blows my mind that there are still issues in any form. If this would have happened here, it would have been solved and made sure it couldn't happen in any local assembly worth its name.
|
On February 05 2020 03:52 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2020 23:40 KwarK wrote:On February 04 2020 23:22 Introvert wrote:
actually if memory serves electronic voting was a big push, particularly by Democrats, after Florida 2000. funny that. Because the Supreme Court decided that marking your preference on a paper ballot didn’t count as a vote for Gore if the perforations weren’t sufficiently perforated. The werid part of it irrc was they ruled that the ruling is essentially a one time deal and should not be taken into consideration for other rulings.
it happens all the time in lower courts, but yeah, the holding in Bush v Gore was limited to its facts, meaning it does not bind courts hearing similar future cases.
|
Sounds like they were completely unprepared to use this app. And apparently they also introduced a new rule about sending photos of the result to an email adress on the fly once they noticed problems were starting. And there were precinct naming discrepancies. Honestly it sounds like amateur hour.
I mean I'm sure they were sold lies by some marketing guy from that software company but still, no excuse to not have a backup plan that is known by everyone in advance. Especially when it's the first timing using the app...
`There Is A Sense That The Iowa Caucuses Are In Serious Jeopardy`
As we wait for the results, I wanted to get a better sense for what happened yesterday from the inside of Iowa’s caucus process. This morning I talked with an individual who is familiar with the internal processes of the caucuses but who was not authorized to speak on the record and what they described to me was a full day, not just night, of tech problems and lack of staffing.
“They have still never seen the app. They were working tech support for the app and had never seen the app,” the person said of the party’s support staffers. They said that those who had been trained to provide support arrived before noon and “it became very apparent very fast how the app was an unmitigated disaster,” they said. “They were getting calls from people saying they couldn’t download the app.” Some of the problems, the person said, were simply precinct chairs less comfortable with technology, but they were also getting reports that the app was buggy.
Even before noon, the helpline was at a 45 call backlog, the person said. “Half the calls were the app, if not more,” they said.
Adding to the technical problems were the introduction of new rules on the fly from the party throughout the day, all before the main round of caucus voting began. “They introduced a new rule that every precinct had to take a picture of their mass worksheet and email it to an email address. This is an instruction that no one had been given ahead of time” the person told me, surmising that perhaps the party had experienced some early problems during afternoon satellite caucuses.
By the evening, when results began to flow in, it became apparent that not just the app was problematic, but also the logistics for precincts to report their results. The names that precincts had been told to use when reporting their results did not match the names that headquarters had, and it led to even more confusion and human error.
Iowa’s party chair announced this morning that they plan to report the caucus results by 4pm.
The mood is “moribund,” the person said. “There is a sense that the Iowa caucuses are in serious jeopardy. That is a pretty universally held belief.”
https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/iowa-caucus-2020-election-live/#255995
|
Hmm yeah, perhaps the app does deserve a fair amount of blame, and if that’s the case, Pete’s ties to the app creator are cause for concern.
|
On February 05 2020 04:44 farvacola wrote:
Hmm yeah, perhaps the app does deserve a fair amount of blame, and if that’s the case, Pete’s ties to the app creator are cause for concern.
Everything I'm reading indicates this company was not selected for merits. Pete has no path without Iowa. It's just a question of how bad he wanted it imo. Why this company? They are nothing.
|
On February 05 2020 04:47 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2020 04:44 farvacola wrote:
Hmm yeah, perhaps the app does deserve a fair amount of blame, and if that’s the case, Pete’s ties to the app creator are cause for concern. Everything I'm reading indicates this company was not selected for merits. Pete has no path without Iowa. It's just a question of how bad he wanted it imo. Why this company? They are nothing.
The fact that we can ask questions like this is why a lot of conflict of interest rules deal solely in the appearance of impropriety, rather than its actual presence. That Iowa was conducting its caucuses using an untested app created by a firm with clear and direct ties to one of the candidates is pretty much a quintessential case of an appearance of impropriety sufficient to tarnish the entire process.
|
Sorry.
You have the count, WHY do you need the app? I don't get it.
|
The integrity of our voting process goes hand-in-hand with that ideal. If people have any reason to question what happens between votes being cast and results announced, then your entire process is shot. It requires complete trust in its impartiality, which cannot be achieved if it even just looks like something hinky is going on.
On February 05 2020 04:59 Velr wrote:
Sorry.
You have the count, WHY do you need the app? I don't get it.
Dunno. shrugs But that very question seems to indicate why this is a problem.
|
On February 05 2020 04:59 Velr wrote:
Sorry.
You have the count, WHY do you need the app? I don't get it. To be modern.
Seriously that's what it often comes down to. "We must go with the times and use an app".
|
Isn't part of the delay also about Biden attempting to block the release?
|
On February 05 2020 04:59 Velr wrote:
Sorry.
You have the count, WHY do you need the app? I don't get it.
From what I understand, the app was supposed to transmit the count and all other necessary data, along with all authetication protocols, to the central headquarters where the winner would be determined.
In that sense, no you don't have the count.
Maybe they should just have used a google spreadsheet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
