Looks like the NYT (and I) may have known about the problem much earlier than it was reported.

[LAS14]

Last edited Tue Feb 4, 2020, 09:16 AM - Edit history (2)

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/03/us/elections/results-iowa-caucus-democrats.html

The Sanders row has this:

First Vote Final Vote
Votes Pct Votes Pct

944 22.8% 689 26.9%

Why would there be fewer Sanders votes in the Final vote? He certainly was viable. And as I understand it, voters have to stick to their first choice if it is viable. There's a link below that says "Confused? Here's how the Iowa Caucuses work." But it takes me to a page with nothing on it but a little Crossword button in the upper left....

HELP!

Edit: That section has disappeared from the NYT site.

[sweetloukillbot]

1. I'm guessing...

That it means some of the precincts that have completed first count have not completed final count, so they aren't included yet?

[LAS14]

2. Well, now that's a plausible thought. Dumb of the NYT, but plausible. Hmmmm....

[sweetloukillbot]

3. The fact that there's two metrics being tracked is stupid

First pass means nothing.

[LAS14]

4. Bumping to see if anyone else has another idea. Data has changed but....

....the relationships haven't. Still the same question. Why does Sanders have less votes in the Final than the First Vote?

tia
las

[LAS14]

5. Hah! It sounds like the NYT was simply reporting the bad data that Iowa was getting.

Probably from early satellite caucuses. Anyway, it sounds very possible. CNN reports bad numbers from second alignment.

That section has disappeared from the NYT site.