Voting fraud by Clinton people?

[merrily]

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4578575/clinton-voter-fraud-polk-county-iowa-caucus

And what was up with the 90 precincts? http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511117888

FYI: In Sanders shoes, I would never have trusted the Democratic Party with the counting after the way the DNC has been behaving, but that's me.

[d_legendary1]

1. I wouldn't put it past the DNC to understaff Sanders strong holds

Especially with the results that I woke up to. How the fuck does someone win with .4% of the vote?

[merrily]

2. At this point, I would put nothing past anyone.

[nxylas]

3. Clinton sure was lucky winning all those coin tosses

6 out of 7, what are the odds? Answer: 1 in 64, if I remember my high school maths lessons correctly. I'm pretty skeptical when it comes to conspiracy theories, but given that the party establishment has barely even tried to conceal its thumb on the scale thus far, I can't help smelling a rat.

[merrily]

4. Also sure lucky that so many precincts came down to coin tosses

The only alternative to conspiracy theories is that everything is always exactly as it seems on the surface. I don't believe that.

http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?1706-Conspiracy-theories-Give-Ockham-s-Razor*-a-rest-now-and-again-will-ya

[central scrutinizer]

5. Probability of winning exactly 6 of 7 coin flips is 7/128

Approx. 0.0547

Probability of winning at least 6 of 7 is 0.0625

[blackspade]

6. The way the counting was done makes no sense....

from this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280108216#post7

....The only reason Hillary is even close is bc of the math involved, I'll explain what I learned at this caucus: in my district
Bernie = 148 people
Hilary = 110 people
Looks to me like Bernie was taking it, right
Nope, and here's why
Total was 258 people ÷ 10% (?) + 13 (he went too fast at 1st so I didn't catch where this # came from, either)
So, 258 ÷ 10% = 25.8 + 13 = 38.8
Then he said to round up so 39
This # means for every 39 people in a group you get one delegate
Bernie 148 ÷ 39 = 3.79
Hilary 110 ÷ 39 = 2.82
So in my mind again Bernie has this!
But nope again, bc
The person with the lowest score gets to round up and the winner rounds down frown emoticon
So now it's
Bernie = 3
Hilary = 3
And people are shocked the race is so close! ....

[Thav]

9. Here's what is supposed to be

the total number of delegates should have been the total number of caucusers * 0.15 or (148+110)*0.15 = 38.7, rounded up using standard rounding to 39.

The number of delegates calculation is the number of caucusers for your candidate, multiplied by the total number of delegates, then divided by the total number of caucusers.

The number of delegates each person should have gotten is as such:

Bernie: (148 * 39)/258 = 22.37 rounded down to 22.
Hillary: (110 * 39)/258 = 16.62 rounded up to 17.

[blackspade]

10. Thanks for the response.

That makes a bit more sense.

So the example from the other post was flat out done incorrectly by the precinct captain.
Lovely. No wonder this is so fucked up.

[winter is coming]

13. That's probably why the Sanders campaign would like to see the raw count.

Mistakes happen, and sometimes "mistakes" happen. There's no harm in checking the calculations.

[merrily]

17. Yes, but, if there were shenanigans, who can trust the raw count?

[winter is coming]

20. And yet, the Party has refused to release even that.

[merrily]

21. Wow, just wow. He has every right to it.

[winter is coming]

25. And the state party has every right to not look incompetent.

But apparently, a lack of scrutiny is desired.

[merrily]

35. Well, the State Party may not actually have every right not to look incompetent...or worse.

[merrily]

18. Thank you. Wow.

[merrily]

15. Thanks, blackspade. That seems bizarre.

[Thav]

7. I'm not sure what went on in other precincts,

but in mine I made SURE there were no shenanigans going on. Granted it was a very small precinct (89 people). I counted the Bern crowd, I counted the Hill crowd. I made the Hill captain count both sides, then the caucus chair counted both. Then when doing the math, I did it (I <3 math), with the Hillary captain watching me and verifying every step of the way. Then we verified everything with the caucus chair.

Integrity.

In something like this, I would raise holy hell if only one person were doing the counting and that was final. Also, what the heck was with people walking in and out? We were explicitly told to NOT leave until the delegates were awarded.

[merrily]

16. Thank you!

[cascadiance]

8. Voter delegate totals might have been deflated by delegate allocations based on LAST election...

... and the participant numbers then, which according to this article notes that in student heavy districts, student precincts arguably had less delegates allocated than the numbers of voters showing up in those precincts, since the delegates were allocated prior to the caucus based on the LAST election's caucus totals, when the timing of the caucus coincided more with winter break when students were still away from school then.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/02/hillary_clinton_won_the_iowa_caucus_says_state_democratic_party.html

...
Despite some controversy over short-staffed precincts late Monday, the Sanders campaign says that it doesn’t foresee contesting the final results—though it is calling on the state party to release the raw vote count from the night. It’s unclear if the party will release the vote—or even if they have an accurate tally given how the chaotic caucus process works—but Bernie is hoping that a raw vote total will allow him to claim his own qualified victory despite his narrow loss in the delegate column. There is a strong case to be made that more Iowans showed up to caucus for Sanders on Monday night than did for Clinton. That’s because a precinct with seven county delegates awards seven county delegates regardless of whether seven people show up to caucus or 700 do. Given that Bernie’s support appeared to be concentrated around college campuses—while Clinton’s appeared more evenly spread out across the state—it’s possible that he was short-changed by the system. In one Sanders-heavy precinct near the University of Iowa, for example, 646 people showed up to caucus on Monday, a roughly 70 percent jump from 2008. (That caucus occurred earlier in the year, when many students were still home for winter break.)
...

We should back up Sanders' campaigns efforts to get the raw totals released. The results might revive memories of how Al Gore won the popular vote count in 2000 even though the more rigged electoral college "vote" gave the election to Bush. A raw total win for Gore will expose this flaw in the system that basically in effect undercounts greater participation in precincts (like for students here) in last election versus this election.

[merrily]

22. This seems worse with every post I read.

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. Did you get to read CoffeeCat's long Op about last night...before the hillpack had it locked?

NONE of this nefarious crap has ever happened in the Iowa caucuses...before Clinton's sleazy campaign showed up in the state.

Coin flips had NEVER been seen by her at any Iowa caucus! The 90 precincts were ( most likely) deliberately not staffed because nothing like that had EVER happened in their caucuses. The Democratic Party campaign chair/director is a huge HRH supporter (has that hill2016 license plate on her car) and most likely deliberately made sure those 90 precincts weren't staffed. That was Insinuated ' in the OP

Go to GDP and find CoffeeCat's locked thread and read it!

Clinton wreaked havoc across the state of Iowa last night!

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[winter is coming]

14. Link here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511120869

[merrily]

19. Thank you. Unsettling, to say the least!

Last edited Tue Feb 2, 2016, 09:53 PM - Edit history (1)

[merrily]

23. No, but thanks for mentioning it. winter is coming posted the link for us.

Last edited Tue Feb 2, 2016, 09:54 PM - Edit history (1)

[Smarmie Doofus]

12. And it's me too.

>>>FYI: In Sanders shoes, I would never have trusted the Democratic Party with the counting after the way the DNC has been behaving, but that's me.>>>

K and R

[840high]

29. +1

[merrily]

24. Bookmarking. Great replies on this thread, either from first-hand observation

of DUers who participating in the caucuses or with links. I have a feeling I will want to refer to this thread in the future.

[Omaha Steve]

26. Bernie has the count from every precinct and the DNC knows he has it

I turned in the results for my precinct to the office like every other precinct captain. I still have my math sheet with everything on it.

[NowSam]

27. You think his numbers won't match the official?

Lawyer up.

[Omaha Steve]

30. Bernie has been telling them to release the count for a reason!

[NowSam]

31. Why won't they release

the numbers?

[Omaha Steve]

32. They never have before

The focus is supposed to be on the delegates. I think it is stupid.

[cascadiance]

34. Then why release the raw votes showing Gore WON the popular vote in 2000?

... when "the focus is supposed to be on the delegate count for the electoral college". See how that answer DOESN'T work for those of us who want to see whether our system is not reflecting what a real democratic system would have done?

We would have been livid if we weren't allowed to see raw vote counts in the 2000 election!!! And RIGHTFULLY SO if that had happened.

[NowSam]

44. So they have release the numbers in the past.

People here are saying its never been done before as if that makes it okay. Weird. Wait until Diebold machines start flipping the votes. Will anyone holler then - in those states?

[cascadiance]

47. They've also never had so close a contest in history of the Iowa caucus either...

In the past when there was a big margin of difference, the nuances of how the system worked with the differences of the way votes mapped to delegates probably weren't viewed as being this significant. But in this case, they are damn close, and it is already obvious in many areas (coin flips, delegates counts being derived from past elections where students where on break and voting at home instead of in the county of their school, etc.). What better way to measure whether the caucus needs "tuning" to actually match what voters really want than to look at the raw vote counts to measure how well the delegate mappings work to match what the real vote counts were. If there were an election to do this, this would be the one to do so. And to do so would show that this party cares about democracy, not manipulation of outcomes. Already when the delegate count shows the other delegates not derived from the caucuses as counting as Hillary Clinton votes it shows how warped this system is in representing real democratic outcomes.

[NowSam]

48. Warped is a good word

for it!

[merrily]

45. Aren't the two connected?

Isn't the raw data in each precinct how the winner of that precinct is determined? And isn't counting the number of precincts won how they arrive at the number of delegates each candidate receives?

I guess I am not understanding why you think it's stupid.

[merrily]

38. Why won't who release? And why would OS know the answer?

[NowSam]

40. The State Party

Why won't Iowa release the data is my question. OS= Omaha Steve? I don't know that he would know? I'm asking all of you. Not just OS. Why won't the Iowa State Democratic Caucus people release the data? Seems like a reasonable request.

[merrily]

46. I don't think any of us know the answer and, until a few minutes ago, I thought it was a

reasonable request. Now, Steve is saying Bernie has counterparts of all the raw data and we should be focusing on delegates, not this.

Now, I'm just confused.

[merrily]

36. Thanks, OS.

By "office," do you mean an office of the Sanders' campaign?

[Omaha Steve]

39. Yes

I had the number in several places including my Bernie ID...

[merrily]

43. Thanks, OS.

[Maedhros]

28. Bottom line: there is no impetus to investigate possible fraud,

and even if they found evidence of it the DNC would take no action (other than to bury it).

We should be focusing on New Hampshire right now. Bernie has the momentum and the better message - he'll be fine.

[blackspade]

33. That in and of itself is the problem.

That is why possible voting fraud in KY will go un-investigated by the State and National Party because "looking forward"
The result is a win in Iowa for Clinton and a win for Bevin in KY.

(not slamming you! Just an observation of a trend in party thinking)

[merrily]

41. I remember a poster who used to post at DU, was it Bradblog?

He used to focus on voting fraud. Fantastic.

Greg Palast also focuses on voting issues, too.

If and when we can no longer trust the vote in this country, we may as well pack it in. What is the point of spending billions in dollars and tons of oxygen and energy on elections and GOTV if the biggest crook can take the ballgame?

[blackspade]

42. Excellent point.

[Art_from_Ark]

53. I think that was Black Box Voting you're thinking about

[merrily]

37. Thanks, Maedhros. If I were an Iowa Democrat, I would insist

because letting anyone get away with stuff is a great way to ensure it happens again and again.

The Iowa Caucuses are not only Sanders' business. They are the business of everyone who showed up to vote. Really stolen caucuses and elections for national offices are really the business of every American. JMO.

I am indeed focused on NH, to the extent I can be and need to be. Discussing Iowa doesn't preclude that. It's not as though NH can't possibly be stolen, or the extend of Sanders' lead there shrunk. The same is true of any state.

What happens in Iowa (if anything) doesn't necessarily have to stay in Iowa.

[Maedhros]

49. Don't get me wrong - I think there should be a full and accurate accounting of the vote.

There should be no compromise in that regard. I just think that the focus of the campaign should be on winning.

[merrily]

50. If the game is rigged, only the people who rig it win.

Iowa is not going to be the only state in the primary that can be rigged, either.

[eridani]

51. Bernie Sanders: 'I Can Only Hope the Count Will Be Honest'

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/34963-bernie-sanders-i-can-only-hope-the-count-will-be-honest

Did Iowa voters feel the Bern enough to tip the tally in Sanders’ favor despite early corporate media reports of a Clinton win? It appears that numerous news outlets are now highlighting polling issues at the Iowa caucus, which if resolved may shift the count toward Sanders. At the moment, it is too soon to know, but not early enough to read about. See below to learn more:

[merrily]

52. So many kinds of potential irregularities; so little time.

[Babel_17]

54. Expend resources, look hyper-vigilant, or let them expose their hand?

Arguably, letting some officials show their hand is better in the long run. Now, when the Sanders campaign insists on common place safe guards, they can't be laughed off.