|
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 07 2020 03:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The central problem is that the Iowa Democratic Party failed to see that a large chunk of people are living in an era of a reverse Hanlon's Law-our trust and faith in one another and our institutions is so low that our first reaction is to attribute anything that could be explained by incompetence to malice. In such an environment transparency requires utter perfection-and even then, you will be called malicious by those who would rather your transparent process have created another result.
The problem is that different people have different standards. There are a great number of events that took place in 2016 that were eventually found to be totally true. Some people say "but that didn't lead to 60 people dying, who cares?". Some people say "every election should be unbelievably secure, honest, neutral and transparent".
The big thing people loved to say in 2016 is "political parties aren't a government entity. They can choose the nominee if they want", which is 100% true while also being 200% dog shit. No one wants a party to be like that. No one gives a shit what is technically legal. Slavery, child labor and forced sterilization were all once legally tolerated. An appeal to law is never an effective means of proving ethics. So where some people say "it is their right", others say "I know, fuck that, it shouldn't be, and I demand they act as if it is not their right".
I am not willing to settle and neither should any of you. This civilization we live in was built by a bunch of random dumbfucks just like all of us are. God didn't give us a rough outline as to how a primary ought to run. We determine all of it. We have no reason to pretend it is out of our control. When enough people get angry, things happen.
|
On February 07 2020 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2020 03:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The central problem is that the Iowa Democratic Party failed to see that a large chunk of people are living in an era of a reverse Hanlon's Law-our trust and faith in one another and our institutions is so low that our first reaction is to attribute anything that could be explained by incompetence to malice. In such an environment transparency requires utter perfection-and even then, you will be called malicious by those who would rather your transparent process have created another result. The problem is that different people have different standards. There are a great number of events that took place in 2016 that were eventually found to be totally true. Some people say "but that didn't lead to 60 people dying, who cares?". Some people say "every election should be unbelievably secure, honest, neutral and transparent". The big thing people loved to say in 2016 is "political parties aren't a government entity. They can choose the nominee if they want", which is 100% true while also being 200% dog shit. No one wants a party to be like that. No one gives a shit what is technically legal. Slavery, child labor and forced sterilization were all once legally tolerated. An appeal to law is never an effective means of proving ethics. So where some people say "it is their right", others say "I know, fuck that, it shouldn't be, and I demand they act as if it is not their right". I am not willing to settle and neither should any of you. This civilization we live in was built by a bunch of random dumbfucks just like all of us are. God didn't give us a rough outline as to how a primary ought to run. We determine all of it. We have no reason to pretend it is out of our control. When enough people get angry, things happen.
That last sentence can go either positive or negative. Just wanted to point that out.
|
|
|
On February 07 2020 03:54 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2020 03:34 Gorsameth wrote:On February 07 2020 03:17 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 07 2020 03:11 Gorsameth wrote:On February 07 2020 03:08 JimmiC wrote:
I'm still very confused why people are talking like all these mistakes are some conspiracy against Bernie. Some of the mistakes were for him, some of them were against him.
A bunch of people were mad about the way it used to be run. So the Dems have changed it up, made it transparent, showed that there was a ton of issues and are now trying to fix them. This is the first Caucus of them trying to do it better, it it is not shocking that there are issues, and it is great that they are putting them all out to the public so that they can be corrected going forward.
I am sure every place right now is working their butt's off to not be another "Iowa". It is actually a good thing that all this stuff is coming to the surface and that they are correcting it. In the grand scheme of things who cares if it takes even a couple of weeks to get it right.
The important thing is to get it right, not to get it right on the first try. I completely disagree with that reasoning. Elections require public trust. The only way to get public trust is to do it right the first time, not the 20th. And if something goes wrong, which is always possible, to fix it quickly. How many days later are we now without results? And how many times have the issues corrections that are still wrong? And this isn't the first time they hold a caucus. These are not 'growing pains'. Isn't this the first time they're using this app and this method of reporting votes? I would call that a growing pain. Also, the QC on this is terrible, as there should have been way more lead time in testing this to make sure they got what they needed, when they needed it, without any mishaps. I'll liken this to Anthem release or Fallout 76. Atrocious and they're still trying to get it right (although in the same vein, their issues arose years ago, same as the above mentioned titles). I got cancer from accidentally ingesting water tainted with gasoline. I didn't stop drinking water because of that one incident. Same applies to this. You all scream for change and modernization and when it is attempted and goes awry, conspiracy theory crafting hour begins. They screwed the pooch in 2016, they're trying to fix that. Do we need to have blind faith in them? No. But allow them the chance to get it right this time. Mi dos centavos. Yes this was the first time for the app, so why was there no backup plan for if the app failed? Or is this mess the backup plan? Cause that's not good either. The problem is that with a videogame I can test it myself to see if there are issues and if there are I can wait a week/month/year and if it gets fixed I can play it. Voters can't test if the results of the caucus are correct themselves. They have to trust the person telling them what the results are. Without that trust it all falls apart, which is also why modernization is going so slow in most of the world and why voting is still done on paper with a pencil. Because that way is proven and safe. And that is more important then the convenience of a voting computer or an app. On February 07 2020 03:28 JimmiC wrote:On February 07 2020 03:11 Gorsameth wrote:On February 07 2020 03:08 JimmiC wrote:
I'm still very confused why people are talking like all these mistakes are some conspiracy against Bernie. Some of the mistakes were for him, some of them were against him.
A bunch of people were mad about the way it used to be run. So the Dems have changed it up, made it transparent, showed that there was a ton of issues and are now trying to fix them. This is the first Caucus of them trying to do it better, it it is not shocking that there are issues, and it is great that they are putting them all out to the public so that they can be corrected going forward.
I am sure every place right now is working their butt's off to not be another "Iowa". It is actually a good thing that all this stuff is coming to the surface and that they are correcting it. In the grand scheme of things who cares if it takes even a couple of weeks to get it right.
The important thing is to get it right, not to get it right on the first try. I completely disagree with that reasoning. Elections require public trust. The only way to get public trust is to do it right the first time, not the 20th. And if something goes wrong, which is always possible, to fix it as quick as you can while ensuring you have it 100% right, this can sometimes take a bit longer if you need to do a recount of paper ballots. How many days later are we now without results? And how many times have the issues corrections that are still wrong? And this isn't the first time they hold a caucus. These are not 'growing pains'. This is the first time they have done it in this way. And this is the first of the year. While I agree that the appearance of trust is important. This is what they used to value and would say as much and than people would all claim it was a conspiracy. When you make something transparent, that is complicated and has issues, those issues are going to be brought forward and corrected. Now if by the 5th or 10th one they are still a shit show I would change my opinion. But right now people are totally over reacting to this. Edit: and to farva I agree that it sucks, and it certainly opens the gate to questions like how fucked up has this been for how long? But I'd rather it get corrected than be ignorant and confident in past likely terrible information. Its ok to fuck up an election 5 times so long as you get there eventually? seriously? Do you let a surgeon take a dozen stabs at removing your appendix before getting it right? Its ok, its not important to get it right the first time... Fair elections is the lifeblood of a democracy, if you can't trust in an election to be fair you might aswell get a dictatorship and cut out all the busy work of manipulating the results. Edit:The time to fix this was Tuesday with a public message of "we screwed up, we will stop reporting numbers and work together with all the candidates to check our numbers with the precincts and make sure everything is correct. We will report the results when we can confidently say they are correct" and then do that. It is not the same thing as a surgery, what a terrible metaphor. But even in keeping with it, yes I would rather they took 5 times to get it right, than bothced it and told me it was right and I perished at some later date never knowing it was wrong. Would I'd rather it have just been right the first time, of crourse, but that was clearly not the case and likely wasn't in any of the past ones where you thought it was. If it is right now, and before the many many more and more important ones then the Candidate that the people actually want will be picked, which is the important part right? The sky has not fallen, this is some odd not seeing the forest for the trees situation. Because there is no faith that they will try to fix it themselves and not just pretend all is fine.
Which is further added to by the DNC now coming in to tell them to start over.
|
|
|
On February 07 2020 03:46 Nebuchad wrote:Tom Perez just demanded a recanvass because there were too many mistakes btw. It's a good thing imo, no way those results could be trusted at this stage. Of course the timing of it happening, just when Bernie was poised to take the lead, ought to raise some questions (Perez said the first count will be finished still, but I'm sure the media coverage will talk about the recount more.) Here's an issue though: + Show Spoiler +
My mastery of english is not perfect but it seems to me the Iowa Democratic Party just answered "Fuck you Tom"?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
Pushing back against a recount is just showing why people have no faith in the process being fair.
|
The fact that the Iowa state party and the national party are in conflict gives me some relief lol
|
I keep hearing "they've never done this before" or variations.
They've always counted the first and 2nd alignment and had those numbers, after 2016, Bernie pushed to make them public in case this happened again.
|
The recount isn't about pure vote counts, its about the SDE's being awarded from Sattelite caucuses which have shot Bernie up level with Buttigieg. The Buttigieg campaign and the DNC think the rules havent been followed for how many SDE's have been awarded to Bernie from these SDEs and want to redo it.
From what I understand there was no SDEs assigned to the satellite caucuses they were given a certain amount determined by how many people showed up whereas every other non satellite was already predetermined, people flocked into the satellites voting for Bernie and he gets an artificially high number of SDEs, Buttigieg campaign and DNC think that is not how the rules work and want to redo this.
|
On February 07 2020 04:23 Zaros wrote:
The recount isn't about pure vote counts, its about the SDE's being awarded from Sattelite caucuses which have shot Bernie up level with Buttigieg. The Buttigieg campaign and the DNC think the rules havent been followed for how many SDE's have been awarded to Bernie from these SDEs and want to redo it.
So we get a week of "everything is fine"
Suddenly Bernie train slams into the station "wait a sec"
|
On February 07 2020 04:25 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2020 04:23 Zaros wrote:
The recount isn't about pure vote counts, its about the SDE's being awarded from Sattelite caucuses which have shot Bernie up level with Buttigieg. The Buttigieg campaign and the DNC think the rules havent been followed for how many SDE's have been awarded to Bernie from these SDEs and want to redo it. So we get a week of "everything is fine" Suddenly Bernie train slams into the station "wait a sec"
To be fair the sattelites didn't come in until yesterday so nobody realised this may or may not be a problem
|
Satellites caucuses were primarily ESL, night shift workers, and others unable to attend their regular caucus events do to disabilities etc...
That Buttigieg wants to disenfranchise them further is *chef kiss* Dem.
|
Large chunks of the process have been plagued by errors as well, so why are only the satellite caucus delegate counts the target of the recount?
|
On February 07 2020 04:32 farvacola wrote:
But the rest of the process has been plagued by errors as well, so why are only the satellite caucus delegate counts the target of the recount?
They probably wouldn't be the only thing looked at but it is why the satellites are why Buttigieg and the DNC are pushing for it.
From Bloomberg news:
"A recanvass is different than a recount. A recanvass is a review of the reporting sheets from each caucus site; a recount is a hand review of each caucus-goer’s individual preference card.
On Thursday morning, the Pete Buttigieg campaign called the Iowa Democratic Party to raise concerns about how the party was allocating state delegate equivalents from satellite caucuses, according to a person familiar with the call.
The campaign believes the party has not been abiding by the rules set out by the delegate selection plan, which has resulted in Bernie Sanders earning more delegates. The Buttigieg campaign declined to comment."
|
On February 07 2020 04:32 farvacola wrote:
Large chunks of the process have been plagued by errors as well, so why are only the satellite caucus delegate counts the target of the recount?
Because satellite caucuses may be attended by people already struggling, which is generally not Buttigieg's team.
|
What really baffles me about this request is that at this point it really doesn't fucking matter. Who wins in delegates is vanishingly unimportant in a literal sense (I can't imagine a net change of more than what, 2 delegates?), has little importance news cycle-wise with New Hampshire looming, and the popular vote isn't going to change.
Very odd and poorly thought out move from Buttigieg. I could understand Sanders doing it if he were more cynical, but not Buttigieg.
On February 07 2020 04:34 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2020 04:32 farvacola wrote:
Large chunks of the process have been plagued by errors as well, so why are only the satellite caucus delegate counts the target of the recount? Because satellite caucuses may be attended by people already struggling, which is generally not Buttigieg's team.
Or more cynically those people struggling got swamped by Bernie supporters who could have attended regular caucuses, especially considering his campaign was the only one that focused get out the vote efforts on them. Probably not what happened, but that is probably the line Buttigieg will play for some reason I cannot fathom.
|
On February 07 2020 04:23 Zaros wrote:
The recount isn't about pure vote counts, its about the SDE's being awarded from Sattelite caucuses which have shot Bernie up level with Buttigieg. The Buttigieg campaign and the DNC think the rules havent been followed for how many SDE's have been awarded to Bernie from these SDEs and want to redo it.
From what I understand there was no SDEs assigned to the satellite caucuses they were given a certain amount determined by how many people showed up whereas every other non satellite was already predetermined, people flocked into the satellites voting for Bernie and he gets an artificially high number of SDEs, Buttigieg campaign and DNC think that is not how the rules work and want to redo this.
From what I read the rules contain some conflicting information. The way the satellites have been counted is perfectly consistent with what is said at some point in the rules at some point but there's another part of the rules where they say something else?
Edit:
|
On February 07 2020 04:34 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2020 04:32 farvacola wrote:
But the rest of the process has been plagued by errors as well, so why are only the satellite caucus delegate counts the target of the recount? They probably wouldn't be the only thing looked at but it is why the satellites are why Buttigieg and the DNC are pushing for it. From Bloomberg news:"A recanvass is different than a recount. A recanvass is a review of the reporting sheets from each caucus site; a recount is a hand review of each caucus-goer’s individual preference card. On Thursday morning, the Pete Buttigieg campaign called the Iowa Democratic Party to raise concerns about how the party was allocating state delegate equivalents from satellite caucuses, according to a person familiar with the call. The campaign believes the party has not been abiding by the rules set out by the delegate selection plan, which has resulted in Bernie Sanders earning more delegates. The Buttigieg campaign declined to comment."
I love that Bloomberg news is still pretending to provide impartial coverage of a race their boss is in.
I don't know if you guys saw MSNBC's Jason Johnson go to bat for Bloomberg to argue he isn't an oligarch or Bernie Sanders is one too. Love to hear Bloomberg news' take on whether their boss is an Oligarch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
