Des Moines Register calls for audit of Iowa results: 'Something smells in the Democratic Party'

[avaistheone1]

Source: Politico

In a strongly worded editorial on Thursday, The Des Moines Register called on the Iowa Democratic Party to move quickly to prove that Monday's results are correct.

The piece titled “Editorial: Something smells in the Democratic Party,” starts out: “Once again the world is laughing at Iowa.”

It gets sharper from there. “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 DMR reads. “The Iowa Democratic Party must act quickly to assure the accuracy of the caucus results, beyond a shadow of a doubt.”

The editorial cites Clinton’s razor-thin victory as too close “not to do a complete audit of results.”





Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/des-moines-register-audit-iowa-results-218731

[question everything]

1. As we should (laugh at Iowa)

It should not be first; the whole caucus system is a fraud. Enough already.

Remember when in 2012 it was first Romney and than Santorum?

Clinton can withstand a loss in Iowa - except as an ego booster. Santorum could not.

[roguevalley]

44. I may have to subscribe to that newspaper. Someone who cares about voter

integrity. Nice to know. Didn't they endorse HRC?

[davidpdx]

70. Yes, they did

[PatrynXX]

59. zzzzz

nothing says ignorant than saying dump the caucus system that many states have. Nothing says moronic than a primary why we even allow them I have no idea. However there should be a better way to count heads. maybe a 20 foot selfie rod?

[litlbilly]

2. Im sure they will stonewall if they have something to hide.

[BlueJazz]

3. This truly makes the Democrats look like a pack of bumbling keystone cops. Add "Little Debbie"...

Last edited Thu Feb 4, 2016, 04:42 PM - Edit history (1)

...to the mix and stuff like this will surely cost us votes. Who wants to vote for an organization (Ha!) that simply can't-get-their-shit-together.

[scscholar]

6. Why do you believe that?

It isn't that.

[BlueJazz]

8. Number one: The midwest already has an identity problem. Remember in movies (then and now) that..

..when a director/producer wants to show the public that one of the actors is "not the brightest knife in the drawer" they use the good 'ol naive mid-west person. "She's from some cow-town in the Midwest...sort of a dumb ass" OR the soldier who just joined the Army: "Where you from soldier?" "I'm from Iowa, sir" Most of the other men/women think "Ah geez...another stupid hayseed"

That's my point. It reflects on us.

[trillion]

31. That they've only endorsed Hillary Clinton so far - many of them have come out and done so

shows a lot of corruption and cause to worry.

Hillary Clinton supporters on DU can get away with acting like they don't know what Hillary's list of Super Pacs mean, or the fact that she's been in bed with Goldman Sachs for the last two years and they are one of her biggest super pacs.

But the DNC cannot get away with it like the Hillary supporters on DU can. They have to answer to the Democratic Voters who DO NOT want Wall Street for the next president. That's half of us.

[Pathwalker]

33. It's DemocratIC voters - not Democrat voters.

That's a right wing meme.

[SoapBox]

34. Maybe just a simple typo.

Sheesh.

[trillion]

37. It's a typo and I'm considering alerting on your very offensive accusation.

Post deleted. It has bad karma and I don't want to sink to being happy to alert people.

Congrats for finding a Buddhist.

[question everything]

60. Instead of alerting, you can go back to your post and edit it (nt)

[trillion]

61. done.

[Duval]

39. Good Grief! nt

[Gormy Cuss]

48. Yes, it is.

If you ever see me post something like that I'd THANK you for pointing it out in such a polite manner. I'd also edit my post, but then again I'm a Democratic voter.

[Pathwalker]

49. It's also a long time tradition on this site, to point this out

when people make this mistake. It's also the first name of this website.
Thank you for your kindness.

[trillion]

57. And God help anyone if they have a typo. They get accused of being Republican.

Excuse me. I should not be engaging this level. Pulling myself out.

[Gormy Cuss]

69. Typos are correctable via the edit function. n/t

[scscholar]

71. I think you have it backwards

I heard "democratic" while in NC, and here in Seattle I heard "democrat" several times a week. I know what damn word to use.

[Pathwalker]

72. Wikipedia lays out the history of this epithet for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_%28epithet%29

It has a long ugly history , and has been used by conservatives as an epithet on ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN, MSNBC to TARNISH the Democratic Party for a long time. There have even been arguments break out on the floor of the HOUSE over the use of this insult. So, feel free to keep on insulting the damn Democratic party, if it makes you feel ....progressive. I'm sure Frank Lutz approves.

[trillion]

45. My point of this post and that I meant to say, is that the DNC is not hoodwinked by Hillary's Super

Pacs. They know exactly what they mean. They aren't the average voter like people on DU. And, they've been called out as recently as last week for being bought by Wall Street so have good reason to show transparency. Half their base wants transparency.(probably more)

[Pathwalker]

62. NICE EDIT. Thank you.

[trillion]

63. No problem.

[grasswire]

4. and this is the paper of the gold standard

...so revered by the Clinton camp.

[matt819]

5. Doesn't matter who your candidate is

The editorial makes a good point. Political races won by larger percentages that .2% almost always trigger automatic recounts. It just makes sense. And while Bernie would like the recount to show more votes and delegates to him, it could go the other way as well, which is fine. It's the honesty of the process and the count that matters. This may not be Bush v Gore, but, really, isn't transparency the most sensible approach?

The editorial also observes that, this count aside, the caucuses are more than a little opaque. Skinner's post the other day about the coin tosses touches on this. Skinner observed that the coin tosses made no substantive impact. Nevertheless, pundits and comedians and journalists point to the coin tosses and question the veracity of the results. It is particularly troubling to see Democratic Party leaders dig in their heels and behave shockingly like Republicans.

[brooklynite]

9. There isn't a count to recount...

...and the DMR know this. They've been covering the Caususes for decades (and I'm willing to bet they've never suggested getting rid of them).

Other than informal notes to calculate the viability and delegate distribution, there are no ballots and no tabulation form.

[Plucketeer]

12. "There isn't a count to recount..."

That's gotta be comforting to at least one camp!

[brooklynite]

15. Pretty comforting for the Sanders brigade....

They can yell "we was robbed" without having to prove it.

[Plucketeer]

22. Believe it or not

that's not what I was thinking. But of course, you knew that as your reply indicates.

[billhicks76]

54. Talk About Backwards Logic

Like Bush supporters you can probably convince yourself of anything.

[CentralMass]

55. What kind of of circus is this where they won't or can't reproduce the vote count ?

[trillion]

64. +1000

[Art_from_Ark]

67. A circus that P.T.Barnum no doubt would be proud of

[jeff47]

16. They can release the raw data that yielded the delegate-equivalents.

While that isn't the same as actually counting the people in the room again, it's a lot closer than "Trust us".

[ieoeja]

21. Actually, there are both counts and math that can be verified.

The official count at each precinct were agreed upon by all campaigns, recorded on paper, double-checked by each campaign, and signed by each campaign. A party official then entered those counts into the app.

They can check the signed off paper record against the app total. Typos happen all the time. There is no reason not to do this.

Even if the counts check out exactly, was there an agreement on the math? If not, then they need to review the math.

Yesterday, I found an error in a decade old application. It takes very specific conditions for the error to arise, but I know for a fact that this condition occurs every year. Complicated calculations are pretty easy to fuck up.

[trillion]

46. +1000

Hey someone who knows showed up. I didn't know that.

[matt819]

50. Hogwash

I think you're wrong, and other commenters on this thread have made the same observation.

But if you're right, that's an even larger problem, regardless of who the candidates are or who won/lost. If you can't recount votes - whether it's a caucus or paper votes or electronic votes - then we don't have transparency or a democracy. You might as well follow the Chicago (or Boston) tradition of voting early and often, or just go ahead and stuff ballot boxes, or skip the vote entirely and just announce some arbitrary winner. If that's the case, we're no better than Haiti or Somalia or Pakistan or. . . you get the idea.

So quit with the smirking. When democrats are happy with this kind of opacity, then we are truly screwed.

[brooklynite]

52. How about the transparency of people actually standing in the room together?

[matt819]

65. Standing in the same room

Playing musical chairs. Being counted and how about verifying those counts?

This is a remarkably absurd discussion.

[JVS]

58. Maybe caucus officials should wear bodycams and informal notes should be done more formally.

[Z_California]

7. The Des Moines Register is obviously just a bunch of sexist Berniebros

[Kip Humphrey]

10. Hillary True Believers are damaging the Democratic Party. Its too bad really.

[brooklynite]

11. Can someone point to an effort made to change the Caucus rules in the past 8 years?

And by "effort", I don't mean people anonymously grousing on the internet. I mean a serious attempt to lobby the Party or Legislature to change the process? Because these rules have been in place for years and all the candidates were aware of them.

[JudyM]

14. It may not be the rules as much as the execution of the rules, e.g., no one running the show.

[Kelvin Mace]

29. Personally, I do not believe that a democratic process

should resemble a game of musical chairs, executed on a broken Victrola with especially clumsy five year-olds.

[scipan]

13. direct link

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/caucus/2016/02/03/editorial-something-smells-democratic-party/79777580/

There are 2 issues here:
1. Whether there should be an audit of the caucus raw numbers (the paperwork each precinct captain filled out); and

2. Whether to change the caucus system going forward.

I think the answer to both is yes. There are too many chances for error in the current system, and I have no idea why they don't have fractional votes at the lowest level but they do have higher up. And the system is needlessly complicated with all those delegate equivalents and levels of delegates. As far as auditing the results, that seems like a no brainer to me if Iowa democrats want people to trust the system.

[questionseverything]

18. if the ptb will not show the math wether it is a caucus or a primary

it is not a legitimate election


on caucus night i went to bed seeing 21-21 reported, the next morning the news was showing 23-21 favoring clinton even tho i read bernie had won several of the outstanding precincts


show me the math !

[NowSam]

27. Agree. Show us the math! eom

[Wibly]

17. Better own it

If the DNC messed with the results they had better get out in front of it by admitting it now because, if evidence of tampering is found, it will destroy the Clinton campaign.
Right now they have a chance to say; Whoops, we screwed up, or: We had some over zealous Clinton volunteers go a little too far. If they wait and an investigation shows tampering, it will be cheeks up for Clinton.

[winter is coming]

19. It doesn't even have to be nefarious. Mistakes are probably made in every election.

Most of the time it wouldn't change the result, but it might here, which perhaps explains the party's reluctance to look too closely at what happened.

[Purveyor]

20. pffft....

[Plucketeer]

24. Did she ever get that jacket fumagated?

Looks like an ad for Selsun Blue.

[trillion]

47. I actually liked the job she did making the Republicans look like the bullys they are, over Begahzi.

However, that clip has an adverse affect when asking to double check a vote that has less than a .5% difference in the results.

It looks offensive to anyone asking for transparency, when used in this case.

There is zero chance the Clinton campaign wouldn't have done the same thing had Sanders won on such a small margin.

[SansACause]

23. What "smells"?

All the polling had Bernie and Hillary neck and neck, with Hillary having a small lead going into the caucus. That's exactly how it turned out. What's the hubbub?

[Plucketeer]

25. Reckon it'll be the same

right after New Hampshire?

[AngryAmish]

28. Patriarchy is strong in the heartland.

[Pathwalker]

30. We attended a caucus in Michigan in 2000. It was very easy,

took a little more time than voting, and everyone signed their name and address on a ballot, which we gave to the precinct captain. She put them into an envelope, sealed it, and signed her name across the seal. She took it to county party headquarters, where all the ballots were counted, and the totals given to the state Democratic party. It was a public vote; 12 for Gore and 1 for Nader.
One of the few things Michigan does right is requiring paper ballots, which would make a recount possible. I like our way better.

[polichick]

32. Figured that was coming after Clinton chucked the schedule in order to declare victory.

[SoapBox]

35. There is likely to be more stench coming up in other states.

The fix was in for The Annointed One...now there is a roadblock and the DNC, DWS, Camp Weathervane and the Cushy Elites don't like it.

More shenanigans to come.

[NorthCarolina]

36. Can't even get past the 1st friggin primary contest without dubious shit going on.

This wasn't incompetence, this was a coordinated effort to win at all costs.

[Duval]

41. Agree. nt

[Geronimoe]

38. How did Hillary know?

How did she know she would win, declaring same while in a vitual tie with 20% of precincts not reporting?

Something smells foul in the Democratic Party.

[Duval]

40. Hubris and poor judgment! Says a lot.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

42. With election results so close, why not?

Human error is a factor in these things and with the DNC clearly pulling for Clinton it's important to have as much transparency as possible.

Audit for accuracy, release the tally, then people would stop bitching. On the other hand auditing something as unscientific as a caucus would be a nightmare.

[ErisDiscordia]

43. It's not called the Turd Way as a compliment!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

51. Who cares? On to lose New Hampshire!

[ViseGrip]

53. As an American who contributes and participates in what I should, I demand an audit!

[Bernin]

56. Here is documented fraud

The Hillary caucus captain says she only counted the new comers. Then, when asked by the Sanders captain if she counted everyone again not just the new comers she flat out lies and says yes.

Don't believe me. See for yourself.

[trillion]

66. +10000

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

68. HEY over here (waving hands wildly) look whats happening in WI - repub bill to allow UNCERTIFIED

voting machines - this after they recently abolished the nonpartisan government accountability board overseeing elections in favor of a partisan appointee body . Just one more WTF moment here in WI under single party far right wing occupation. Its like they don't even bother to conceal the corruption and sleaze.

Applying the whole winner-loser dichotomy to Iowa process is a misnomer. The delegates are allocated proportionate to the tallies - not winner take all. Really, how many delegates are at stake and for me - I gotta prioritize and hopefully choose my battles wisely - how do I spend my time,energy and resources.

I would say let the Iowa dems sort out - everyone else might want to consider that theres probably quite a few electoral battles in your home state worth fighting.

My opinion fwiw.