Iowa caucus: Here's a map of precincts where the data appear to be irregular

[Donkees]

FEB 7 2020

A common error, according to CNBC’s analysis, is that in many precincts — possibly more than 80 — the number of votes counted in what’s known as the “final alignment” was greater than the number in the “first alignment.”

That discrepancy is theoretically impossible under caucus rules, which are determined by the state party.

The IDP said in a statement on Friday that due to “delays in reporting and some inconsistencies in data” it issued new guidance to presidential campaigns. The party said it will allow them to submit documentary evidence of incorrect data by Saturday at 1 p.m. ET.

It also extended the deadline for campaigns to file a requests for a recanvass or recount from Friday to Monday at 1 p.m. ET.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/07/iowa-caucus-map-of-precincts-where-the-data-appear-to-be-irregular.html

[squirecam]

1. Iowa is a lost cause and should be banished from its spot

Atop the primary field.

[HerbChestnut]

2. Huh.

A common error, according to CNBC’s analysis, is that in many precincts — possibly more than 80 — the number of votes counted in what’s known as the “final alignment” was greater than the number in the “first alignment.”

That could have implications for allocated SDE's. Considering that Pete got most of the realignment votes, and the difference in SDE's between him and Bernie is so small (currently less than 2), that means we don't really know who won Iowa in terms of SDE's.

[Peacetrain]

4. If Bernies people did the same thing at other caucuses as they did at mine

He missed his second ballot chances.. something he just insisted on. When it came time to caucus, (that is why we call it a caucus..people talk to each other) his people walked out. We were gobsmacked. Petes and Elizabeths precinct captains came in and talked to us, and they got a lot of 2nd choice votes. For someone who was supposed to do so well with the caucus, I have not a clue what they were thinking ...The next day I read in here that some twitter thing went out that they should just walk out and not interact with other candidates voters.. go figure

[JudyM]

9. WTH??!!

Some twitter thing went around?

[Peacetrain]

13. Yep it sure did.. it was you can align with Buttigieg

and someone else or leave. isn't that nuts.. and my guess is that it went out to his captains, they are the ones that release their people to go home

[JudyM]

16. Unbelievable. I wonder if it was actually from the campaign.

And if it went out to all his precinct captains... if it was widespread it could account for some of the surge to Buttigieg. Why it would not encourage folks to go to Warren’s camp, if anything, makes it highly suspect.

[Peacetrain]

20. Darned if I know Judy.. but it was here in DU..

Someone posted it up..They could release their people that was fine.. and then the Precinct Captains should have come into our room with everyone else. Because once your candidate is viable you cannot change your vote.. so what they are doing is talking to people whose candidate is not viable.. they only needed their captains in there to try and get the second ballot votes ..So not everyone had to stay once their vote was viable.

Now apparently after the app did not work or our people did not know how to download it.. I have never got a clear view on that one..but they were going to call the numbers in.. and the republicans jammed the lines so the votes could not get called in.. oh joy.. its an old tactic of theirs and it worked

[JudyM]

25. So it was a tweet from the Sanders campaign

that you saw both at the caucus site and on DU? Same tweet?

[Peacetrain]

27. No no.. just saw the report of that tweet here in DU..

[HerbChestnut]

10. That still doesn't explain...

...how there would be a higher final alignment vote total than first alignment. If anything, something like what you described would make the discrepancy even more mysterious.

For example:

1000 people show up for first alignment.
After first alignment, 300 people leave the room for various reasons, leaving 700 people remaining.
Final alignment vote count is 1100...

Bit weird, yeah?

Now let's say those 300 people stayed in the room and realigned with other candidates and the final alignment count was still 1100. Still doesn't make sense.

[Peacetrain]

17. This is the first time we have ever done it this way.. and your guess is as good as mine

the best way I can explain it was that is was a primary in the middle of a caucus. It was so different. Before if you were not viable and you wanted your vote to count you could choose another candidate to stand with and that was it. This time they had this totally f*cked up first choice and second choice on on ballot on opposite sides of the same ballot. Someone had to stay up late to think that one up seriously.. I am blaming my party apparatus here.. they should have just put their foot down on this crazy thing.. We are either a caucus or a primary. This was going to be a total screw up .. I came home with such a headache.. and I felt so sorry for all those volunteers at caucus trying to get this thing to work.. they had the patience of JOB.. I give them a lot of credit.. so glad I was not working it this time..

[HerbChestnut]

19. The process didn't change. The only thing that changed was that we now have a paper trail.

The caucus always involved a first alignment and final alignment. There's a very good chance counting mistakes have occurred in previous caucuses, but we had no way of knowing about it because there were no paper records.

[Peacetrain]

21. No we have always had a paper trail.. I got into a discussion about that with someone the other day

We have to be registered Democrats and sign in and they have our names and addresses. If there is ever a question at any caucus you can call the participants.. its not a big deal.. they know who what when where and how ..

[HerbChestnut]

23. But there was nothing keeping track of first and second alignments. No paper records.

We don't know who won the popular vote in 2016, for example, when the margin of victory for Hillary Clinton was less than 1% in terms of SED's. It's possible Bernie won that popular vote but lost SDE's like this year (maybe).

[Peacetrain]

26. See Herb you have hit the nub of the problem!

We have not had first and second choices before. We have never had a signed ballot before. We registered came in voted.. and if our candidate did not make the 15% of our particular caucus, then those people could either go and join with another canididate/.. that is the caucus part..people talk to each other to see if someone else is in their philosophical wheelhouse and they can join them and have their vote count or leave and not count.

Now we have this ballot.. first choice.. (if not viable) then second choice. So unlike how we used to caucus, you have one vote (maybe two tries at it) but only one vote counts.. now you have a first vote and a second vote? did the second vote cancel out the first vote? see what I mean..


You get one vote that counts. You can do it by caucus or primary.. but you only get one vote that counts. now someone somewhere came up with this fruit loopy way of counting that has everyone confused. Even the candidates.

Again Herb, my state party here should have told who ever brought this crazy idea forward ..no thank you.. we are a caucus. or we are a primary.. you can not be both..

[HerbChestnut]

28. ...

We have not had first and second choices before. We have never had a signed ballot before. We registered came in voted.. and if our candidate did not make the 15% of our particular caucus, then those people could either go and join with another canididate/.. that is the caucus part..people talk to each other to see if someone else is in their philosophical wheelhouse and they can join them and have their vote count or leave and not count.

That is exactly what the paper ballots were keeping track of. Nothing about the process changed. I have also caucused before, and it's not hard. It would not be hard to write down the candidate I support on the first alignment, then write down the candidate I support on the second alignment.

[Peacetrain]

31. Herb that is where you and I have a point of disagreement

We have Pete claiming victory because he got the delegates.. We have Bernie claiming victory because he has the first ballot votes.

Since we are a caucus that actually selects delegates Pete has the winning hand.

But since we did a ballot, Bernie is claiming victory because he has more actual votes.

See what I mean. Its like Hillary won the actual voters and if we voted directly she is the President. But because we use the electoral college Trump is President.


We are a caucus state, and I think Pete smartly used a caucus strategy to get the most delegates. It is not about the actual votes of any one caucus but the percentages.

Using a first and second choice ballot is trying to put a primary in the middle of the caucus. Only one person can win. And we choose delegates by percentages.

Now quite frankly I would rather be a primary state with a direct vote. But it is what it is and I live in a caucus state. We can only use one model.

[Uncle Joe]

3. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread Donkees.

[Progressive2020]

5. Also- The Associated Press

Last I heard, the Associated Press would still not call the race, it is too close to call. The rest of the media rushed to anoint Buttigieg early on. The problem with that is that many precincts leaning towards Sanders- urban precincts and college towns- were not yet counted near the start. That is why Bernie got closer and closer the more that those later precincts were counted.

Anyway, whoever won, the victory is razor thin. No decisive victory, for either Sanders or Mayor Pete. In terms of Media coverage and a boost to his campaign, it is clear that Buttigieg is the winner. He has gone from dark horse to front runner. And Sanders is the loser, in that the bar was raised high for him in Iowa. Anything less than a decisive victory in Iowa is not a win for him.

I do think that Bernie can come back in New Hampshire, but Mayor Pete is surging. It is an interesting process. I am not much of a Mayor Pete supporter. If I was to go for a moderate, it would be Amy Klobuchar for me. I do not think that Pete is experienced enough. Mayor of a small city in the Midwest is not enough for me. That said, he is still kind of a wunderkind, and if he wins the nomination, I will certainly vote for him and fight for him to win. We will see what develops.

[JudyM]

12. I know. POTUS is an enormous job

and Pete, AFAIK, hasn’t managed large complex operations.

[krissey]

6. First state and Sanders is crying cheating. We have a long way to go. Sanders runs his campaign

like NO Democrat.

[W_HAMILTON]

7. Sanders wrote the rules of the game and he still lost.

[krissey]

8. Yes.

[HerbChestnut]

11. CNBC is claiming discrepancies have occurred. Nobody is claiming cheating took place.

It could just be as simple as a counting or math error.

[stopdiggin]

24. just as likely. confusion in applying new rules

and, yes .. mistakes are a given (any time people are involved).
Cheating? Extremely unlikely.

NYTimes 02/06/2020 -
-snip-
Mandy McClure, a spokeswoman for the Iowa Democratic Party (I.D.P.), said the party reported the data as provided to it by the precinct caucuses.

“The caucus math work sheet is the official report on caucus night to the I.D.P., and the I.D.P. reports the results as delivered by the precinct chair,” she said. “This form must be signed by the caucus chair, the caucus secretary and representatives from each campaign in the room who attest to its accuracy. Under the rules of the delegate selection process, delegates are awarded based off the record of results as provided by each precinct caucus chair.”
-snip-

so everyone .. including the campaign representatives .. approves the numbers at the end of the evening.

[HarlanPepper]

14. It's ironic

Especially given the suspect results from the satellite caucuses which appear to have been run by Sanders supporters.

[krissey]

15. I am still waiting for that information to come out.

[bobbieinok]

29. WHAT are satellite caucuses??

[SharonClark]

32. That is one of the questions I have.

Sanders campaign organized several satellite locations for Spanish-speakers that would discourage them from attending their regular (neighborhood) caucus and, some suggest, keep them in line. The formula for awarding SDEs at satellite caucuses is what should be investigated.

From the NY Times article, "A Sanders campaign adviser said that of the 483 people who attended Spanish satellite caucuses, 430 went for Mr. Sanders.

The party’s published results show how Mr. Sanders was able to dominate at many of the satellite locations. At one caucus held at the Better Day Cafe in Storm Lake, Mr. Sanders was supported by 93 of the 103 participants and picked up 2.98 S.D.E.s — the largest delegate haul for any candidate from any precinct in the state.

But Mr. Sanders may also be benefiting from the way the state party is allocating S.D.E.s to the satellite caucuses. Close watchers of the results have raised questions about which formula the party is using; under other interpretations of the rules, the satellite caucuses would not be quite as valuable to Mr. Sanders in the S.D.E. count."

[stopdiggin]

18. the NYTimes ran a good article

on "discrepancies and problems" (and what may have led to them) in yesterdays' edition. Worth looking at if someone is interested in what actually transpired.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/upshot/iowa-caucuses-errors-results.html

the most likely cause for the "overvote" on final tally was
1) people arriving late were allowed to caucus (which would violate the rules)
2) "undecideds" were not properly counted in the initial tally (assuming they would be "tallied" as they joined a candidate further on)

[bobbieinok]

30. Participated in IA caucus from 72 to 88

When there were many there several people worked to count the number

Often parents brought teen children (which visually confused counting numbers)

I enjoyed every time. It made voting more real, talking with and trying to persuade neighbors

[Donkees]

33. NEW: ⁦@BernieSanders⁩ campaign will ask the Iowa Democratic Party to look into "irregularities''

Link to tweet