Can we demand a "recount" of the Iowa caucuses, too?

[Zenlitened]

:sarcasm:

Jeez, this "vote fraud in NH!!!1" smearboating really represents a new low, IMO. :(

[Fresh_Start]

1. are there paper ballots in Iowa? NT

NT

[Zenlitened]

4. Maybe the caucus-goers have home videos they can share.

Or maybe there were security cameras, and we could count people darting from one side of the gymnasium to the other?

:banghead:

[Bitwit1234]

16. Hell no you raise your hand...and guess what everybody has two.

[Fresh_Start]

18. so how do you know if the hands were counted correctly?

because the problem isn't the voting its the counting.

[youthere]

20. You don't raise your hand. You stand.

[wtmusic]

2. You can demand a recount whenever your fave doesn't win

but only if you do it in a really snarky way.

[no name no slogan]

10. WE HAVE A WINNAR!!!

Everybody go home, this thread is OVER!

[kenfrequed]

14. Sure...

So demanding a recount in 2000 is snarky?

Or is it only snarky if you win and the other guy calls for a recount?

[Windy]

3. a caucus doesn't use ballots... its a consensus, not an individual vote

totally different and less subject to tampering. Not that I am claiming that NH was tampered with.

[bluedog]

5. can we verify they all live

in Iowa?.........that they are legal citizens?...what were the requirements to vote in the caucuses.

[Joe the Revelator]

6. I think a caucus is pretty transparent, where black box voting is pretty much the opposite

nt

[Double T]

7. Caucuses are the next 'best' thing to hanging chads.

BOTH need to be outlawed!

[cyberswede]

12. How do you figure?

I was caucus secretary at my precinct, which means I completed the paperwork with all the counts on it, which was agreed to and signed by the caucus chair, myself, and the precinct captains* for each candidate who was viable. The totals for each candidate must match the number of people who signed in. Simple math, really. And completely transparent.

*precinct captains are local resident who volunteer to act captain on behalf of the candidate they support - all of them live in the precinct.

[Double T]

15. Straight up voting without any outside influences for each registered voter........

only makes sense IMO.

[cyberswede]

22. Caucuses are a much more interactive process

for participants who choose to be more interactive. Participants who just want to "vote" can do so, too. They choose their candidate, get counted, and they're done.

We have regular primaries in Iowa for other elections (governor, for example).

I've voted in primaries, and I find the caucus process to be much more engaging (it also functions for party-building - candidate preference is only one part of the process).

And I submit that there are easily as many outside influences on a primary voter as there are for a caucus voter. If you plan to suggest that caucus goers are bullied into supporting a candidate they wouldn't otherwise choose, save it. It just isn't the way it happens.

[Cha]

8. The new low was reached

by bill and hillary when they're smearing & whinging about Obama..there's yur new low.

[stillcool]

9. "Vote Fraud"

You've got your lingo confused. You want.."Conspiracy theorists"..those are the people that tend to point to scientific studies, past inaccuracies in vote counts, and problematic results when computerized voting provided questionable results. They are the ones that point to the fact that accurate totals can be insured when open source code is provided by the voting machine manufacturers and a percentage of ballots are hand counted. "Vote Fraud" is when illegal voters, whether they be those purged from the rolls, or registrations are called into question, or when someone buys a vote.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203

[Zenlitened]

21. It was touch-and-go for a while, when NH election officals announced...

... they were running out of electrons in some precincts. Had to ship extra photons to a few of 'em, too, to keep the optical scanners going.

:D

(All snarkiness aside, if I may: I do agree that election fraud is a serious issue. But a New Hampshire primary with record-setting voter turnout... using optical scanners that do indeed leave a paper trail... in an era when the media can't see beyond the dazzling glare of its own studio kleig lights... when polling has been left behind by phone technology... well, this just doesn't seem to be the "smoking gun," IMO.)

[ronnykmarshall]

11. No!

The ballots have ascended to heaven with the angles that looked after them while each one was lovingly recorded.

PRAISE! GLORY!!!


Hold m'snakes while I fall to the ground and talk in tonges.

Blluuppa valla zoopbla fleeger cha-cha!

[ORDagnabbit]

13. I think we should hand recount everything.

[Imagevision]

17. Minimum, the election should at least be verifiable which it's not, betcha didn't know that

[Zenlitened]

19. Just what we needed to take the issue mainstream: A *Democrat* to accuse!

P.S. John Kerry was a coward. George Bush was a war hero.

:cry:

[cyberswede]

23. All caucus numbers verified by all campaigns

The paperwork that is submitted for the caucus numbers is signed by the caucus chair, caucus secretary, and the precinct captain for each viable candidate. The numbers not only have to match the number of people who signed in, they are verified by a designee for each candidate before they're even submitted. This year we submitted the results by phone, and were able to view the results online very quickly afterward - any discrepancy in the numbers be noticed.