There won't be any effective challenges to the results of Iowa's caucuses.

[MineralMan]

There's not really even a way to do that. The caucuses have been held and the results are known. The system is purely a Democratic or Republican Party thing. Few laws govern such caucuses. Their rules are set by the individual political parties, and it is that set of rules that governs how they are carried out.

Unlike official elections, there are no recounts or second chances. The caucuses are what they are, a lead-in to the three conventions that follow them. At the county, congressional district and state levels, the process repeats itself with delegates chosen at those precinct caucuses representing the people in their own precincts and districts.

The entire caucus and convention system is self-equalizing. There will be three more opportunities to even things out before the small contingent of delegates to the national convention are elected. In the end, that group of delegates will be divided in the same proportions as were determined at the precinct caucuses, plus or minus a delegate or two.

Then, at the Democratic National Convention, Iowa's delegation will make up just over 1% of the total number of delegates at that convention. 1%.

The differences of a delegate or two, one way or another, are so minuscule that they won't affect anything at all at the national convention.

The primary system is a bit clumsy, but the process is still self-regulating. There are so many steps in the process of reducing the number of delegates down to Iowa's 44 pledged delegates that the proportions will be maintained closely. That's close enough when your delegation is only 1% of the total number of delegates at the national convention.

This is all much ado about nothing, really. The Iowa caucuses are over. Time to move on to the next state, and then the next, until all 50 states have selected their delegation to the national convention. The delegate count there is all that matters.

[merrily]

1. There already is a challenge. And you are at odds with the Des Moines Register as to what should

happen.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511136849

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511137826

[MineralMan]

2. The Iowa caucuses are over. There might be arguments.

There might be people who are upset. They're still over. Watch. You'll see. Iowa will move on to the county conventions. The process will continue uninterrupted. In the end, it doesn't really matter much at all.

Am I at odds with a newspaper in Iowa? OK. I don't mind. I don't matter much either.

[merrily]

3. No one claimed the Iowa caucuses are still in progress. Put away the straw man.

[frylock]

49. Nothing to see hear, folks. Move along.

[Dem2]

4. Hey, don't spoil the fun

Bickering until NH I say!!!

[MineralMan]

8. Bickering is fine. It's fun.

It will change nothing, however, which is the point of my original post. We can bicker all we like. Next stop - the NH results, and then the Nevada results and then the SC results. We will be bickering here on DU until the November election. That's what we do here.

[Purveyor]

5. Filthy rotten Clinton corruption who can be surprised really?

[JaneyVee]

32. Right, from the team who steals data, poses as union workers, and uses logos from non endorsers.

[Purveyor]

55. You really don't want to go there and have me list off the clinton clan scandals now do you? eom

[Jarqui]

6. I find it hard to believe that they had to sign a legal release that

they wouldn't take legal action in order to participate.

You can sue about darn near anything.

I have my doubts Bernie would do it but I'd guess that is still an option.

[MoonRiver]

11. Who would he sue, and what would be the complaint?

[MineralMan]

14. The lawsuit would be filed against the Democratic Party of Iowa.

They're in charge of the Democratic caucuses in that state. Filing such a lawsuit would be huge mistake on the part of any campaign, though. I doubt any such thing will occur.

[brooklynite]

18. ...and what would the redress be?

Everybody! Please show up again tomorrow night and vote again?

[MineralMan]

20. There is no process to do that.

It simply won't happen. Next, there will be the county conventions in Iowa.

Here's something most people don't know: Any delegate to the county or later conventions can change allegiance by simply signing a statement indicating who he or she now supports. Will that happen in some cases? Almost certainly.

Here's the secret: The Iowa delegation to the national convention is currently split almost evenly. Hillary has a delegate or two advantage among the pledged delegates. Following the state convention, every delegate will be known and pledged. Will the count change? It might, but not by more than one or two. The national convention delegation will still be split almost evenly, as it is predicted to be now. Will it be the same as current predictions? Maybe or maybe not. It will still be almost identical, though.

Even so, since Iowa's delegation is just 1% of the total number of delegates, it doesn't really matter in determining who will be the nominee. Not really at all.

[frylock]

50. Yeah, look how filing that suit against the DNC has effected his campaign negatively.

[Jarqui]

19. Probably the Iowa Democratic Party would be a defendant, maybe others

Sanders campaign could be the plaintiff, maybe others

http://iowademocrats.org/about/official-documents/
potentially for not following some procedure in those documents linked above (I'm not going through them)

or a general damage tort because they did not report the right winner ... (make the allegation and make the court figure it out)

I state that very loosely - as a ballpark concept - might not win but you can sue nearly anybody for nearly any reason. In this case, they have a pretty good general complaint backed up by local media.

Often, these things don't go all the way through court (like the Sanders data lawsuit). It's a shot across the bow that often results in a change in behavior to avoid litigation.

[MoonRiver]

21. How special for Bernie to have this sore loser lawsuit hanging over him

during the entire election process. Way to go, not.

[MineralMan]

25. That's why it won't happen.

Iowa will be forgotten as soon as the NH results are in. And then we move on to NV and SC, and toward Super Tuesday.

Much ado about nothing.

[Jarqui]

26. It's certainly something for a campaign to weigh but as I said above,

I doubt Sanders would bother.

But in more general terms, if an election is held and they do not accurately count the votes, few will point the finger at the candidate saying "sore loser" for very long if he's proven to be correct. It appears that there are a number of instances the paper has reported where there have been some irregularities so they wouldn't get branded as a sore loser for very long because the irregularities would come out in the media.

Rick Santorum seem to over turn Iowa without a big "sore loser" label - it seemed to really help his campaign and put him in first place for a little while.

If Hillary lost Iowa, it would sting.

[MoonRiver]

30. What always amazes me is how Sanders' supporters throw in Republican examples

to support their points. Don't know why, , but that just doesn't resonate with this progressive.

[Jarqui]

41. Maybe like their candidate, Sanders supporters do not see things as either

black or white - they can see various shades and color.

They can see everything GOP is not automatically always evil or bad and everything Democratic is not always perfect, good and wonderful. Having said that, they frequently lean left.

Same goes with media references: the notion that only media that has been sympathetic to the Democratic party can be right & true and media that has been sympathetic to the GOP is always wrong & false is not a very reliable notion. Although I frequently disagree with GOP media, it does tend to open my eyes with broader perspective on an issue. Understanding their thinking and what they're putting out there is often the best way to come up with counter arguments to erode GOP support for example and their sway on Democrats.

[MoonRiver]

42. My impression is that Bernie bends to the wind.

When it was to his advantage to be pro-gun, he was. Now that it is not, he's backtracking. The definition of flip-flop.

[Jarqui]

44. Pro gun? d- NRA rating?

If you were genuinely concerned with Bernie flip-flopping on a particular issue there isn't a hope in hell you would support Hillary Clinton because in my 50 years of following national politics, Hillary is the greatest flip-flopper of them all.

Minimally, she has flipped on
Iraq War
Gay Marriage
DOMA
Charter Schools
Clean Coal
Keystone pipeline
Ethanol mandate
Raising the debt limit
Raising payroll taxes
Illegal immigration
Cities can ignore Federal Agencies
Embargo on Cuba
Iran's right to enrich uranium
TTP
Korea Trade
NAFTA
Columbia Trade
Central American Trade

Recently, she flipped from a moderate in the center to a progressive on the left!!
She's taken millions from Wall Street ... but she's going to get them!

And the kicker is, she also flipped on gun control....
Opposed "blanket rules" in 2008
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/5/1428037/-Hillary-in-2008-Fed-imposing-Blanket-Rules-on-guns-makes-no-sense

Attacked Obama on Gun control in 2008 (when she was Annie Oakley and stretching with tales of her own gun usage)

I think one story about her shooting ducks with a rifle .. normally done with a shotgun

Good to know your bar on flip-flopping is so high, you could never support Hillary!

[MoonRiver]

59. Please provide links to support those statements.

Otherwise you're just spinning.

[frylock]

51. You just can't make this shit up!

Bernie bends to the wind. Unfuckingbelievable!

[MoonRiver]

7. So it's all just theater, throwing red meat to the masses?

Seems to be working around these parts.

[MineralMan]

10. Theater? That's a pretty good description.

It is sort of like that. In the end, however, we will have a Democratic nominee. In many ways, our entire electoral process can be seen as theater. We're all part of the audience, here on DU. The noisy, unruly part of the audience, I guess.

[MoonRiver]

13. I agree, which is why we all need to chill out just a little bit.

You are always the voice of reason on DU, MM, and I very much appreciate that.

[MineralMan]

15. Well, being reasonable isn't a very popular position to take here.

That's OK, though. I'm not running in any popularity contest on DU. I'd lose badly, I'm certain.

[MoonRiver]

16. I doubt anybody would, except within small factions.

Can't wait until Super Tuesday.

[MineralMan]

17. I'm eager for all of the caucuses and primaries, really.

Super Tuesday has always been a big favorite of mine. Finally, after March 1, we'll get a look at multiple states in one pass. That will give us all a really strong hint about how it's all going to go. Neither candidate will have a majority of delegates following Super Tuesday, but there's a good chance that we'll see a pretty clear indication of how the rest of the nation will go.

I love primary season. Not for the arguments and name-calling, but for the opportunity to watch our awkward, clumsy system move forward toward picking the two candidates. One of them will be President for four years, and then we get to watch it all again.

For me, the real work of elections happens at the state legislative level and in the House of Representatives. That's the main event. The presidency is part of the side show, as far as I'm concerned. I can't do anything about who becomes President. I can do something about who represents me in both the state and federal legislatures.

That's what interests me and gets me involved. I'm just one of the rabble-rousers in the audience for the presidential election. What I think doesn't really matter much in that race.

[KingCharlemagne]

38. One note: a series of near photo finishes, coupled with unresolved

allegations of vote-count irregularities, might laybthe ground work for a third-party run by Sanders or Trump, on the grounds that the party "machine" is acting in such a way as to thwart the will of the voters.

I this k the prospect of a 4-way race is fascinating and might usher in the tectonic shift of an 1860 type (minus, I hope, another Civil War).

[daleanime]

9. Even if there isn't....

even if there shouldn't be....

our political system needs an complete over haul. We're definitely not getting the mileage we should.

[MineralMan]

12. We'll need a constitutional convention for that.

I'm not optimistic about such a thing happening. I suspect our system will continue pretty much as it is throughout the lifetimes of everyone on DU.

Still, you're free to call for that overhaul if you like.

[AgingAmerican]

22. No, we don't

We just need enough fed up people.

[MineralMan]

23. I believe you're incorrect.

We will still have the same election process, the primary system and party conventions, all leading up to an election in November.

People will either vote or they will not. Either way, the system in place will continue to operate. We're not going to have a real revolution. Count on that.

[AgingAmerican]

56. Don't have to change the system

Just have to flush the toilet

[brooklynite]

24. Which you currently don't have...

...add to which, do you SERIOUSLY want the Government to have a role in YOUR Party's nomination process? The only reason States determine Primary rules is because they pick of the cost of voting. You really want the rules determine by an unchangeable Constitutional Amendment?

[daleanime]

27. Where did he say anything about 'Government' involvement?

Or a constitutional amendment?

[brooklynite]

28. What does a Constitutional Convention do?

[daleanime]

31. What does that have to do with the fact that the poster who you.....

are replying to did not mention it?

[brooklynite]

34. And didn't mention anything else, either

Explain how you achieve a "complete overhaul" of our voting system, particularly our nominating process (which is what the OP is about) with changing the Constitution.

[daleanime]

36. Sigh.....

Put down what ever you want for my response, you will any way.

And people wonder why I fear for our future.

[AgingAmerican]

58. The corporations don't want anything to change

Neither do their defeatist supporters

[daleanime]

60. They are will to convert our lives....

into their money.

[AgingAmerican]

57. Don't have to change the constitution

Just have to flush the corporate turds out of the party

[jeff47]

29. That depends. IA's place in the primaries may be at risk.

Republicans are already talking about taking away IA's position, because they constantly chose losers (Last 3: Cruz, Santorum, Huckabee)

On the Democratic side, there's complaints about how IA's demographics don't come close to the rest of the country. Add in some appearance of corruption with stonewalling, and that intensifies the problem.

IA doesn't want to lose its first-in-the-nation spot. They rake in a giant pile of money from it. If that first-in-the-nation spot becomes threatened, they'll do a lot of things to reduce the threat.

[JaneyVee]

33. We should skip starting in Iowa and start in SC instead.

[jeff47]

39. No, SC's demographics are also nowhere near the rest of the country.

And from a Democratic perspective, it doesn't make sense to start in a state that will never vote for the Democrat in the general. If SC can't deliver general election votes, their choice is not meaningful in the general election.

The main problem with selecting the "first" state is you need a relatively small state that still is representative, yet when they make their choice it would be meaningful for the general election.

Small state because if CA or NY goes first, there's so many people that the race would come down to advertising. It would be far too difficult for someone who isn't awash in superPAC cash to get attention.

Meaningful for the general is demonstrated by the Republican's problem with IA. The Republicans there choose candidates that are only popular in IA. The bump for Santorum and Huckabee from IA hurt their eventual nominee.

[MineralMan]

35. Any changes Iowa makes will affect the next election

cycle. Not this one.

As for when their primary takes place, that, too, will be decided later and for the 2020 election, not this one.

Personally, I'd like to see something like a Super Tuesday as the first primary event. That would be a lot more interesting really.

However, the real reason a small state like Iowa is first is because it allows poorly-funded candidates to participate. If, by chance, such a candidate wins in Iowa, that candidate will be able to raise money better for future primaries. That's why Iowa and New Hampshire have traditionally been first in the order. Their delegations to the national conventions are small, so their results don't have much of an effect on the nomination.

If Iowa lost its position as the earliest primary event, it would be replaced by some other low-population state with a small delegation. That's why we have a first primary event in the first place. It gives small players somewhere they can afford to compete.

[jeff47]

40. That's my point.

IA may do things now to prevent changes in the future.

Someone with "Hill 2016" as her license plate denying access to raw data does not look good, even if the raw data 100% supports the reported result. Alone it wouldn't be enough for change, but on top of other problems it might. Granting access to that raw data is easy, cheap, and significantly reduces the danger.

[Motown_Johnny]

37. Again, your opinions are presented as if they are facts.

There are other opinions out there which disagree with yours.

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

^snip^


Editorial: Something smells in the Democratic Party


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.

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.

[MineralMan]

43. See my signature line.

All posts written by me are my opinion, and my opinion only.

Where I post concrete facts, those support my opinion. If you find an error in facts in my posts, please let me know, and I'll make a correction. If you don't like my opinion, you're more than welcome to offer a counter opinion, of course.

[whatchamacallit]

45. Mineral Man has spoken!

[MineralMan]

47. You are correct. I'll continue to speak, too.

Thanks for reading my thread and commenting on it.

[whatchamacallit]

48. No, thank you

[k8conant]

46. I'm wondering why the IDP didn't even check the result data they publish:

I don't seriously believe Hillary got 10 county delegates while Bernie got 0 in Black Hawk County WL 4-1.

Nor do I believe Clinton 7 Sanders 0 in Franklin, Hampton 1

And no results for Fremont Riverton or Kossuth CR 1???

Oh, well.

[frylock]

52. I just have to laugh at the fact that Democrats are pushing back against transparency.

No wonder they've done fuckall over the last 16 years to combat election fraud.

[Kip Humphrey]

53. pathetic post... but very revealing of the poster.

[MineralMan]

54. Thank you so much for your comment and

for taking the time to read my post.

[ieoeja]

61. Campaign signed off on recorded results in each precinct. They can re-add those.

Even if they add up, do they agree on the math? If not, they need to review the math.

I do not know why this is even a question. If someone questions the results of a program I wrote, I check the data. If the data is okay and does not explain the possible error, I check the program code. If hat doesn't work, I check the math of the person who reported the error. This should be standard procedure for a professional.

Though I have certainly known professionals who get all defensive or try to shift the blame instead of just doing their fucking job.