EPTWe are talking about the problem of transmitting a few numbers over a few hundred kilometers at most. This is a problem which has been solved for centuries.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2081
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11517 Posts
We are talking about the problem of transmitting a few numbers over a few hundred kilometers at most. This is a problem which has been solved for centuries. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23238 Posts
On February 05 2020 05:37 Simberto wrote: But there are very simple methods to not have this problem. We are talking about the problem of transmitting a few numbers over a few hundred kilometers at most. This is a problem which has been solved for centuries. Here's the big problem. They fucked up first alignment counts in many caucuses, which messed up which candidates were viable, which meant realignment was inaccurate or illegitimate because of the rules, and then people did the math on how to allocate the delegates based on those alignments wrong. Typically the party collects the same "3 types of data" but they used to only report the final count so no one saw the 'bad math' and process errors. So they might have a sheet of paper with numbers on it but they can't recapture the moment a candidate should have been declared viable or non-viable but wasn't because of a bad count/bad math. That's what Biden is intimately familiar with and privately arguing invalidates the results. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6213 Posts
On February 05 2020 05:37 Simberto wrote: But there are very simple methods to not have this problem. We are talking about the problem of transmitting a few numbers over a few hundred kilometers at most. This is a problem which has been solved for centuries. It would have literally been faster for every precinct to do a count and then send two people with ID in a car with the results to whereever they're counting it and hand in the results. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6230 Posts
For anyone following, there's basically a homemade runoff system. You form a group supporting a particular candidate, and if your group is below a cutoff, you are dispersed and forced to group on a different candidate who met the threshold. Then, at the very end, a count is done and delegates assigned. It sounds like the app was the thing that decided whether a group met the threshold in the first place. If it broke, a bunch of groups could have been erroneously eliminated, with knock-on effects that change the entire downstream count. Depending on how things are tracked, there may be no way to reconstruct this. This looks like a total fubar. Wow. I am impressed. | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On February 05 2020 05:56 GreenHorizons wrote: Here's the big problem. They fucked up first alignment counts in many caucuses, which messed up which candidates were viable, which meant realignment was inaccurate or illegitimate because of the rules, and then people did the math on how to allocate the delegates based on those alignments wrong. Typically the party collects the same "3 types of data" but they used to only report the final count so no one saw the 'bad math' and process errors. So they might have a sheet of paper with numbers on it but they can't recapture the moment a candidate should have been declared viable or non-viable but wasn't because of a bad count/bad math. That's what Biden is intimately familiar with and privately arguing invalidates the results. I think I would need a manual of the Iowa caucus voting regiment to understand what you just said  | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11517 Posts
On February 05 2020 05:56 GreenHorizons wrote: Here's the big problem. They fucked up first alignment counts in many caucuses, which messed up which candidates were viable, which meant realignment was inaccurate or illegitimate because of the rules, and then people did the math on how to allocate the delegates based on those alignments wrong. Typically the party collects the same "3 types of data" but they used to only report the final count so no one saw the 'bad math' and process errors. So they might have a sheet of paper with numbers on it but they can't recapture the moment a candidate should have been declared viable or non-viable but wasn't because of a bad count/bad math. That's what Biden is intimately familiar with and privately arguing invalidates the results. I see. I actually wasn't aware of the exact process of a caucus until right now when i read the wikipedia entry. In that case, there does not seem to be any way to fix this problem. It is still pretty weird that that would happen a lot, since that process isn't exactly new, and neither counting nor calculating 15% of a number are very hard to do, especially using a calculator. On February 05 2020 06:07 Sbrubbles wrote: I think I would need a manual of the Iowa caucus voting regiment to understand what you just said The wiki entry is enough to understand his point. I had no idea what he was talking about either, but then i looked it up, and now i know. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23238 Posts
On February 05 2020 06:07 Sbrubbles wrote: I think I would need a manual of the Iowa caucus voting regiment to understand what you just said Same goes for a lot of Iowa caucus goers. Then on top of that they botched the reporting and Pete's comms guy tweeting out the login pins for the app probably didn't help. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11517 Posts
On February 05 2020 06:07 Belisarius wrote: Caucuses sound like one of the last efficient methods of voting known to man. For anyone following, there's basically a homemade runoff system. You form a group supporting a particular candidate, and if your group is below a cutoff, you are dispersed and forced to group on a different candidate who met the threshold. Then, at the very end, a count is done and delegates assigned. It sounds like the app was the thing that decided whether a group met the threshold in the first place. If it broke, a bunch of groups could have been erroneously eliminated, with knock-on effects that change the entire downstream count. Depending on how things are tracked, there may be no way to reconstruct this. This looks like a total fubar. Wow. I am impressed. I think the idea is pretty charming in some ways, at least in theory. It turns it from simply voting to trying to convince people and exchange arguments, hopefully making the decision a bit more informed. It is also less horribly FPTP than the rest of the US system. I dislike the fact that your vote is open, though. I think it is important that election systems allow people to make their choice without any social pressure from others. Also, it takes a lot more time. So, i don't exactly know what to think about caucuses as a general principle. That they fucked them up here is a completely different problem. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6230 Posts
That's a pretty low bar, though. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44358 Posts
The Iowa Democratic Party says it will release a majority of the delayed results from the Iowa caucus at 5 p.m. ET Tuesday. ~Description from video: At 3:25 in the above video, someone actually reports it'll only be about half of the Iowa results... So we're probably not going to get the final results today at all >.> | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
I am not against heterodox voting mechanisms (in fact, I'm a big fan of ranked voting with the winner chosen by the condorcet method for single winner elections -it's simpler than it sounds-), but having people stand around in a room and counting heads just seems messy. Also, how would they find out if there was a miscalculation in the realignment phase if there's no paper trail? Or maybe they counted (and wrote down) the number of heads correctly but messed up the math afterwards? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23238 Posts
On February 05 2020 06:27 Sbrubbles wrote: Ok, I looked at the wiki, though I'm not 100% I understood correctly. I am not against heterodox voting mechanisms (in fact, I'm a big fan of ranked voting with the winner chosen by the condorcet method -it's simpler than it sounds-), but having people stand around in a room and counting heads just seems messy. Also, how would they find out if there was a miscalculation in the realignment phase if there's no paper trail? This has always been an issue. After Sanders lost in 2016 by 0.3% they fought to make the party publicly disclose the counts so that if they did it wrong we could see the math. The first time they had to "show their work" this is what happens. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23238 Posts
On February 05 2020 06:49 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: There are so many people at these caucus events, surely some will check the math? Are there really that many mistakes? The rounding errors should be minimal (largely based off misunderstanding the rules rather than the math itself) the real problem is this scenario. 100 people show up to caucus and register. 15 people is the threshold for viability A candidate has 14 supporters that came to support them on first alignment That candidate is non-viable and their supporters become free agents and can move to one of the viable camps or remain uncommitted (if that reaches 15% they are awarded a state level delegate) This is where the irreconcilable problem happens. When the non-viable camps realized they were a supporter or 2 short of viability they tried to recruit people after the first alignment counts were done Their candidate was non-viable and should not have been able to net any delegates, but their supporters basically ignored the rules and the chairs couldn't force them to observe them. Typically they can just ignore it and point to the final count they usually released. As a matter of fact the data was definitely not secure (as the chair just told media) because Buttigieg's comms guy tweeted out the log in pin passwords. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21689 Posts
On February 05 2020 07:06 Zaros wrote: And this is why you can't have a company with ties to a candidate handle this. Its way to easy to claim that the results are tampered with to give the edge to Buttigieg.NBC saying Buttigieg 27% Sanders 25% but that is delegate equivalent vote for 60% of the vote. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On February 05 2020 06:59 GreenHorizons wrote: .. This is where the irreconcilable problem happens. When the non-viable camps realized they were a supporter or 2 short of viability they tried to recruit people after the first alignment counts were done Their candidate was non-viable and should not have been able to net any delegates, but their supporters basically ignored the rules and the chairs couldn't force them to observe them. ... Thanks for the explanation. Seems like a trouble waiting to happen this way. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EP9tNmSU8AAdRMZ?format=png&name=900x900) | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23238 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13938 Posts
Warren not winning anything just shows that she is second teir to sanders and can't seriously win. | ||
| ||
