|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:Democracy in Action Your 2nd round votes are not supposed to be able to decrease, right?
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:22 |
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:Been out of action for a few hours, are there updated results now? they're up to 92% returned now, 3 of the 5 satellite caucuses have returned, 1 of which is now 100% done
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:51
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Literally who gives a poo poo. There is zero negative consequences to that, whereas there are absolutely negative consequences to trying to downplay and silence concerns over something that could actually have a significant negative impact if not more closely examined. Or, and just hear out this wacky theory, life isn’t a binary choice between “which logical leap should we make” and choose door C where it’s okay to wait until results are 100 percent reported and checked and then draw conclusions. Because reporting errors happen a loving lot in the aggregate and there’s a paper trail so there’s literally no reason not to wait and see rather than being terminally online  ing this stuff and spinning out Twitter theories.
yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Feb 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:52
|
|
|
That's the whole county I think so multiple caucus locations
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:52
|
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:Your 2nd round votes are not supposed to be able to decrease, right? The longer you look at it the crazier it is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:52
|
|
|
i'm not sure if pete is incredibly cocksure or just desperate but attacking biden like this seems so dumb
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:53
|
|
|
i do not understand how these delegates function do they have literally any role other than picking convention delegates?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:53
|
|
|
Very confusing!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:54
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:"There was a recent op-ed after we switched from a late caucus to a not quite super tuesday effort and it was titled "Washington's presidential primary is no longer a meaningless", but really it still is" 538 is, well, 538, so take this with a grain of salt, but right now they've got things at 40% sanders majority, 25% brokered convention. There's a good chance that things are close enough this time around that the DEGREE to which Washington votes for Bernie can make small but very real difference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:54
|
|
|
kidkissinger posted:only 27% percent of americans even identify as democrats Yes and that’s...a lot? Like that’s more than a quarter of the population. And if you’re looking at voter reg alone you’re probably undercounting people who have “democrat” as at least part of their identity. This isn’t necessarily always a bad thing for Bernie either. If he gets the nom he’ll absolutely need the motivating pull of that group identity. It’s a huge part of why getting the nom is a big deal!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:54
|
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:Your 2nd round votes are not supposed to be able to decrease, right? What do you mean? If someone leaves or goes to another candidate, of course second round goes down for that candidate. That’s the point of multiple rounds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:55
|
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:Democracy in Action "Buttegeig"
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:55
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i do not understand how these delegates function they pick the county delegates that pick the CD delegates that pick the convention delegates*
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:56
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:What do you mean? If someone leaves or goes to another candidate, of course second round goes down for that candidate. That’s the point of multiple rounds. If you hit the 15% those votes are locked. Op was confused. Those numbers are for multiple precincts in a county. First vote could be higher if they didn't hit 15% at their precinct
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:56
|
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:Your 2nd round votes are not supposed to be able to decrease, right? Only if you are considered viable. If your candidate doesn't meet the threshold you can switch to one that does, hence a lot of Biden first-rounders going to Pete in the second when Biden fails to be viable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:57
|
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:Your 2nd round votes are not supposed to be able to decrease, right? they can, especially if your candidate isnt viable even if you are viable, people could leave and join another group whenever
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:57
|
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:Your 2nd round votes are not supposed to be able to decrease, right? If you were non-viable in a location in the first round you would drop unless your supporters refused to realign. In aggregate this would show up for irrelevant candidates like Yang, Steyer, Biden etc
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:58
|
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:Your 2nd round votes are not supposed to be able to decrease, right? I was voting Boo-iden
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:58
|
|
|
So is this officially fraud yet? Why aren't we seeing lawsuits flying?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:58
|
|
|
tbh i think you have to expect some drainage in a system as clunky as the iowa caucus apparently is - some people may go to the wrong group, some may actually change their minds on the spot, some are miscounted etc, so some irregularities (like fewer second round votes than first) are to be expected of course, given how ridiculous this whole process has been there's no real reason to have faith in it so...
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:58
|
|
|
OJ MIST 2 THE DICK posted:they pick the county delegates that pick the CD delegates that pick the convention delegates* and at none of these steps is anything else than the delegates to the next step voted on?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 03:00
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:So is this officially fraud yet? Why aren't we seeing lawsuits flying? You have to let them finish shooting themselves in the foot before you take your shot. So as long as they keep fiddling with the numbers nobody is going to do anything because things will change at random intervals and random amounts. After they release their "final" count is when any lawsuits or other actions are threatened/taken.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 03:00
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:and at none of these steps is anything else than the delegates to the next step voted on? you used to be able to swap candidates, but that got locked in a while ago
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 03:01
|
|
|
any system relying on people standing in the right spot is going to have some failures - the british parliament votes this way, and so MPs are basically professional standers-in-spots, and they occasionally cock up and pick the wrong lobby
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 03:02
|
|
|
PepsiOverCoke posted:I will tell you in Iowa, Biden, Warren, and Klob supporters DO NOT like Sanders. Its a spectrum for sure, but Bernie is definitely the least popular of supporters of other candidates. Not only is there a very large difference between Iowa and the rest of the country in terms of voter preference, but the sort of person drawn to a caucus is going to be different than the sort of people voting in a regular primary. Someone is usually only going to go to a caucus if they feel fairly strongly about their candidate (or strongly against another candidate). The dynamics are significantly different than 2016. In 2016 caucuses were a clear benefit to Sanders because Hillary was unquestionably the "default" choice for low-engagement voters. But this time around, there isn't a clear "default choice." That sort of voter is likely to be split between the various candidates, with Sanders taking a significant share if he's perceived as a likely winner (which has a good chance of being the case after New Hampshire). Basically what I'm saying is that the sort of non-Bernie voter to show up at a caucus is probably more likely to be an ardent anti-Bernie type than the sort of person who might vote for a non-Bernie candidate in a regular primary. yronic heroism posted:Or, and just hear out this wacky theory, life isn’t a binary choice between “which logical leap should we make” and choose door C where it’s okay to wait until results are 100 percent reported and checked and then draw conclusions. Because reporting errors happen a loving lot in the aggregate and there’s a paper trail so there’s literally no reason not to wait and see rather than being terminally The point is that there is something very wrong with the reasoning of someone who is more angry at the people assuming the discrepancy and other strange behavior is definitely malicious than they are at people who are just as confident that it's just a mistake. Not only are neither of those positions exactly "logically airtight," but the latter is much more harmful in practice. The former is at least a line of thought that will keep pushing the issue instead of just nodding and accepting mistakes happening. I don't see any good reason to get frustrated and annoyed at people committing the cardinal sin of "perhaps being somewhat overeager at assuming the worst of bad people/organizations."
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 03:03
|
|
|
OJ MIST 2 THE DICK posted:you used to be able to swap candidates, but that got locked in a while ago yeah, but like, they're not actually delegates to the iowa democratic state convention where issues are discussed and voted upon or something
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 03:03
|
|
|
Im thinking why not have a caucus but have it mail in, and then also an in person caucus for whatever super delegates or some sort of elevated status for in person showing up. Maybe you get first dibbs on being a delegate if its in person. You still get a caucus and the mail in caucus ballot would be ranked choice, and still divided up by precinct. That way its still Iowa, its still a caucus, it has a paper trail, its still Iowa Firstx and most importantly, MORE PEOPLE CAN PARTICIPATE. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 03:04
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:yeah, but like, they're not actually delegates to the iowa democratic state convention where issues are discussed and voted upon or something they're delegates to the county conventions where they vote more on issues and poo poo
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 03:04
|
|
|
make caucus day a bank holiday, it might actually be interesting
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 03:05
|
|
|
OJ MIST 2 THE DICK posted:they're delegates to the county conventions where they vote more on issues and poo poo ok so the delegate number does actually matter somewhat. that's oddly reassuring that they do have a function of some kind
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 03:06
|
|
|
PepsiOverCoke posted:Im thinking why not have a caucus but have it mail in, and then also an in person caucus for whatever super delegates or some sort of elevated status for in person showing up. Maybe you get first dibbs on being a delegate if its in person. what advantage does this give over, say, voting by mail?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 03:07
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:any system relying on people standing in the right spot is going to have some failures - the british parliament votes this way, and so MPs are basically professional standers-in-spots, and they occasionally cock up and pick the wrong lobby I think everyone gets the core premise of the Iowa Caucus is extremely confusing, stupid and dumb. The Precinct A goes through all that bullshit you mention, Says Sanders gets 2200 Votes........................then the Iowa Democratic Party gets those results and says "Hey everyone Bernie got 1600 Votes." It's happened multiple times, all negative for Sanders and each time it has nothing to do with how bad and dumb the initial voting was. The people collecting the votes just aren't doing it right, repeatedly, for whatever reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 03:08
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Not only is there a very large difference between Iowa and the rest of the country in terms of voter preference, but the sort of person drawn to a caucus is going to be different than the sort of people voting in a regular primary. Someone is usually only going to go to a caucus if they feel fairly strongly about their candidate (or strongly against another candidate). I think thats true. Im talking in general though, just word on the street stuff. I will tell you both my wife and mother in law infuriate me because they both echo this sentiment. "I dont like Warren. Because like Hillary i cant stand her voice" Ok but what about her policies or positions? "Oh they are great and we should.have a woman president" So...youre making your decision based on...her voice? "Yes" *dies* Same thing for mother in law. She likes Warren over Bernie because "i dont want to hear him yelling for 4 years" What about his policies? "Those are fine but we just dont need yelling and hes gonna have another heart attack" They both caucused, too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 03:08
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:KLOBGOBLINS nice
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 03:08
|
|
|
I came down with the flu. I'm nowhere near Iowa but I'm going to blame it on the primaries. In the meanwhile if you live in New York or want to do away with the corrupt dnc you should support my ex-coworker. He seems to be really gung ho on Bernie, AOC, and reforming the DNC. https://twitter.com/NickforAstoria?s=09
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 03:08
|
|
|
JordanKai posted:"Buttegeig" *sighs, spiking another set of results*
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 03:08
|
|
|
kidkissinger posted:what advantage does this give over, say, voting by mail? Ranked choice voting and mainly, and the ability to do the whole debate back and forth thing in person so folks are more involved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 03:09
|
|
|
My personal feeling about this being a "ratfuck" is that it's unlikely it was some sort of top-down "we're gonna organize this to gently caress-over Bernie" thing, since that sort of thing would be difficult to conceal. Instead, I think what likely happened is a bunch of people coming up with excuses to make choices that have a chance of hurting Bernie. For example, with the app they may have thought "it gives jobs to people I like, and if they gently caress it up it'll just prevent Bernie from gaining momentum - it's win-win!" If numbers were fudged to make Bernie's results worse, it was probably not an explicit top-down command, but rather the action of individuals who thought they might as well gently caress with the numbers some to depress Bernie's results. Worst case scenario is that people notice it and make an issue of it, in which case they simply have to say "whoops, we'll correct that." Unless they were stupid, you can't prove malice. Like I think joepinetree said, ratfucking can take the form of a bunch of people in an organization simply being purposefully slow to take action on mistakes that benefit them (and fast to take actions on those that don't). Or being more lax in situations where they have little to lose (like letting the Iowa Caucuses become a clusterfuck).
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 03:10
|
|
|
PepsiOverCoke posted:Ranked choice voting and mainly, and the ability to do the whole debate back and forth thing in person so folks are more involved. this is a complete non sequitur. more people could be involved and actually voting if you did it by mail. edit: you could also do ranked choice by mail
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 03:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:22 |
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:they can, especially if your candidate isnt viable 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 03:14
|
|
