EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2100
| 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 | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24384 Posts
Worth remembering this is after they dripped out results for a week because of "quality control" | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12559 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22649 Posts
On February 09 2020 20:33 Nebuchad wrote: OoLuckily the integrity of the process is being ensured. wha, but... how...? Am I missing something here or is this just completely insane? | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
If only I knew this in my calculus classes | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46503 Posts
On February 09 2020 20:33 Nebuchad wrote: Luckily the integrity of the process is being ensured. https://twitter.com/tripgabriel/status/1226358111453274113 Is this Opposite Day? Shouldn't it be the case that errors must necessarily be fixed to ensure the integrity of the process? Through errors alone, Buttigieg should be losing 2 delegates and Sanders should be winning 2 more delegates... and then on top of all that, isn't Iowa still holding back a final delegate that also needs to go to Sanders? (Only 40 out of 41 have been assigned so far, and I've heard that the final one should be going to Sanders for some reason, which is why they've been holding it back.) On February 09 2020 21:34 farvacola wrote: They’re basically revealing that math isn’t the problem, it’s the use of the math, which provides further support for this debacle being a historical indication of a lack of rigor in Iowa caucuses. Oh okay... so it's the conclusions drawn from the counting, rather than the actual counting? I assume, then, that the multitude of counting errors have been fixed then. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27463 Posts
On February 09 2020 21:34 farvacola wrote: They’re basically revealing that math isn’t the problem, it’s the use of the math, which provides further support for this debacle being a historical indication of a lack of rigor in Iowa caucuses. Perhaps it’s me just being out of bed but I’m rather confused here. Do you mean they haven’t been screwing up maths calculations but the process of converting to delegates via the rule book? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46503 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany12023 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24384 Posts
On February 09 2020 21:34 farvacola wrote: They’re basically revealing that math isn’t the problem, it’s the use of the math, which provides further support for this debacle being a historical indication of a lack of rigor in Iowa caucuses. Worth remembering what Sanders campaign (and his supporters) said last time. Once again the world is laughing at Iowa. Late-night comedians and social media mavens are having a field day with jokes about missing caucusgoers and coin flips. That’s fine. We can take ribbing over our quirky process. But what we can’t stomach is even the whiff of impropriety or error. What happened Monday night at the Democratic caucuses was a debacle, period. Democracy, particularly at the local party level, can be slow, messy and obscure. But the refusal to undergo scrutiny or allow for an appeal reeks of autocracy. The Iowa Democratic Party must act quickly to assure the accuracy of the caucus results, beyond a shadow of a doubt. First of all, the results were too close not to do a complete audit of results. Two-tenths of 1 percent separated Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. A caucus should not be confused with an election, but it’s worth noting that much larger margins trigger automatic recounts in other states. Iowa's nightmare revisited: Was correct winner called? Second, too many questions have been raised. Too many accounts have arisen of inconsistent counts, untrained and overwhelmed volunteers, confused voters, cramped precinct locations, a lack of voter registration forms and other problems. Too many of us, including members of the Register editorial board who were observing caucuses, saw opportunities for error amid Monday night’s chaos. The Sanders campaign is rechecking results on its own, going precinct by precinct, and is already finding inconsistencies, said Rania Batrice, a Sanders spokeswoman. The campaign seeks the math sheets or other paperwork that precinct chairs filled out and were supposed to return to the state party. They want to compare those documents to the results entered into a Microsoft app and sent to the party. “Let’s compare notes. Let’s see if they match,” Batrice said Wednesday. Dr. Andy McGuire, chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic Party, dug in her heels and said no. www.desmoinesregister.com This was from 2016. They've known since 2016 there were reporting issues and their solution was to go with an even sketchier app solution and just refuse to change the errors everyone sees. EDIT: link to first reports of missing precincts EDIT2: Relevant StealthBlue post from back then about inexplicably changed numbers in Iowa results. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35174 Posts
On February 09 2020 12:36 Belisarius wrote: "it's not a vote counting app, it's just a thing that runs on my ipad that counts votes" Democracy in action. "We got it from the tool store." | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On February 09 2020 21:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Oh okay... so it's the conclusions drawn from the counting, rather than the actual counting? I assume, then, that the multitude of counting errors have been fixed then. On February 09 2020 21:37 Wombat_NI wrote: Perhaps it’s me just being out of bed but I’m rather confused here. Do you mean they haven’t been screwing up maths calculations but the process of converting to delegates via the rule book? It’s hard to tell based on what has been revealed so far, but I think the conclusion drawing/conversion to delegate discrepancies are the primary issue. There's also an implication that what they've historically been calling math is being shown to not actually be math at all, which may lie at the base of the reason why they are refusing to adjust what appear to be obvious and simple computation/counting errors. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On February 09 2020 21:48 Simberto wrote: This is amazing. Are people seriously arguing that math is a subjective thing? Is there a link to the complete text? Because that surely cannot be what people are saying. Math is pretty much the least subjective thing in existence. That is the whole point of math. It's from the tweet thread of the tweet Nebuchad posted. It was said in an internal email by attorneys. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22649 Posts
From "No we will not recanvas because that would demean the work done by our volunteers", which is hilarious because I'm pretty sure those volunteers want their results to be correct. to "we will not correct mistakes if we find them because then Math is biased". Wonder if stuff like this is making any of the people that voted for "they are just incompetent" a few days ago change their mind. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46503 Posts
On February 10 2020 01:17 Mohdoo wrote: Warren at 9% in NH. If she sticks around and starts robbing Bernie of delegates, I'm gonna get salty I don't really see any of the top four candidates quitting before Super Tuesday, so I'm just hoping (for Sanders's sake) that Buttigieg and Biden equally dilute the moderate vote more than Warren dilutes Sanders's progressive demographic. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On February 10 2020 01:12 Gorsameth wrote: Wonder if stuff like this is making any of the people that voted for "they are just incompetent" a few days ago change their mind. I was definitely leaning towards the former a few days back, but at this point I think it erases all doubt that it's some pretty deliberate massaging of the results. | ||
| ||
