|
Lycus posted:What happens when there's a tie between many candidates? Do they find the guy at the caucus that plays a lot of Dungeons & Dragons? Before rolling for initiative, you need to figure out each candidate's armor class. Hillary usually wears Teflon armor, which is worth... wait, are we using second or third edition rules here?
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
Microsoft could've integrated random.org's third party service into the app, I guess. But that'd totally kill the mood of a caucus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Yeah, that's dumb. They have to be someone who is in the caucus. In the event that they need to find a way to award an odd delegate, everyone eligible to be that delegate has chosen a side. Just giving it to fat John and telling him to be unassigned doesn't make him not the insane leader of the unprecedented Double Hitler contingent. Lycus posted:What happens when there's a tie between many candidates? Do they find the guy at the caucus that plays a lot of Dungeons & Dragons? Depends on what they have on hand. Perhaps from now on each precinct will get an emergency tie breaker package. Inside a deck of cards, assorted straws of various sizes, a sustainably farmed, free range, killed due to natural causes, chicken bone fashioned into a D20, and a 120 page pamphlet outlining in explicit detail the variances of Roshambo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Yes, there is. "Unaffiliated" is its own preference group. My caucus had literally zero unaffiliated voters, and thats not going to be uncommon, people who are willing to show up and endure an hour or more of bullshit probably have an opinion. Makes more sense than giving away extra votes by chance. It would be trivial to set up assignment rules that don't rely on that and it's endlessly amusing that people think the current way is in any way defensible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Makes more sense than giving away extra votes by chance. It would be trivial to set up assignment rules that don't rely on that and it's endlessly amusing that people think the current way is in any way defensible. Your opinion on this issue is objectively wrong. The primary purpose of the caucus is not to indicate a preference for a presidential candidate, it is to elect county delegates who will ultimately elect the new state party leadership that will run the party in that state for the next 4 years. And oh by the way, I guess we also have this presidential nomination thing too, so lets throw that into the rules as a criteria for selecting delegates. That precinct earned that number of delegates to help determine the future of the party in that state. You need to somehow pick those delegates from that room, and trying to determine who in the room might be truly "unbiased" in case of a tie is really dumb.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Does this problem exist in the primary system? If not, maybe caucuses ought not be the way the presidential nomination is decided, tradition be damned.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
remusclaw posted:Does this problem exist in the primary system? If not, maybe caucuses ought not be the way the presidential nomination is decided, tradition be damned. For those who don't really care about the day to day operations of the party in the state, then primaries are obviously superior, more convenient, and caucuses may seem to be pretty dumb. The virtue of the caucus is that the grassroots can very easily throw everyone out, seize control of the party, and elect new leaders. In a state with primaries..... its harder to throw the leaders out. If you don't like the way your state Democratic or Republican party is being run in a primary state, they are more entrenched and less accountable to party members.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
I guess the answer here would be to do both? Just decouple the Presidential nomination from the caucus, best of both worlds, no? I mean, obviously less people would show up to a caucus that was just about local leadership, but those are the people who care about that anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
remusclaw posted:I guess the answer here would be to do both? Just decouple the Presidential nomination from the caucus, best of both worlds, no? Texas held a primary and caucus and it sucked.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
What happened? Or was it just less entertaining? I mean if all you want is drama, obviously a caucus is the way to go.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Texas held a primary and caucus and it sucked. The Texas thing was pretty different from what he's suggesting. They awarded most delegates by a primary, then had a caucus where they awarded some, but you had to vote in the primary in order to caucus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
i thought the republicans did decouple the presidential nomination from the caucus. they had their caucus and i guess they'll have their county caucuses later who presumably will do all the state party governance stuff (?) but the delegates they're sending to the national convention will have their assignments handed to them based on a proportional allocation of the ballots cast yesterday, on a statewide not precinct-by-precinct basis
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:The Texas thing was pretty different from what he's suggesting. They awarded most delegates by a primary, then had a caucus where they awarded some, but you had to vote in the primary in order to caucus. Are you sure about that? I skipped the primary and participated in the caucus no problem in 2008. I even introduced a change to the platform to guarantee healthcare as a right at my precinct 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
soscannonballs posted:A delegate is a delegate. You can't say its only half. bless you for this reference
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
What would King Solomon do?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Makes more sense than giving away extra votes by chance. It would be trivial to set up assignment rules that don't rely on that and it's endlessly amusing that people think the current way is in any way defensible. Who exactly do you send as the "unassigned" delegate? I don't see how you can pick someone who isn't a Bernie or Hillary supporter. Honestly, there are problems with the Iowa caucus but coin flips for ties are not one of them. County delegates are worth very little and you need some way to settle ties. Removing or adding a delegate to a precinct is just as arbitrary as flipping a coin, even if it "seems" more professional, and it's just as likely to unfairly bias toward one candidate or the other. Concerned Citizen has issued a correction as of 06:20 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Are you sure about that? I skipped the primary and participated in the caucus no problem in 2008. I even introduced a change to the platform to guarantee healthcare as a right at my precinct My main point was that the delegate issue was different, but yeah, I'm fairly sure about the eligibility thing? Just going off of wikipedia and the first few google hits, but I didn't see anything to the contrary. Going for 2008 specifically gets me this U.S. News article, for example. e: From the 2013-2014 rules available here quote:B. Precinct Conventions e2: I should have specified that I know nothing about the Republican side of all that. eviltastic has issued a correction as of 07:06 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:bless you for this reference I'm glad you and the other guy enjoyed it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Who exactly do you send as the "unassigned" delegate? I don't see how you can pick someone who isn't a Bernie or Hillary supporter. That's where the one O'Malley supporter comes in
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
Lycus posted:What happens when there's a tie between many candidates? Do they find the guy at the caucus that plays a lot of Dungeons & Dragons? I was working on the IDP's caucus help line, and the recommended tie breaker for a draw between 3 or more preference groups was pulling names out of a hat. I'm pretty sure we never got to that point, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
etalian posted:What would King Solomon do? Cramming Cruz into a bottle would be satisfying, but I don't think it would solve this problem 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
Pakled posted:Jeb Bush has a clear route to the nomination, but first, we need to talk about parallel universes. By staying in the same polling position for twelve days, Jeb can build up enough speed to finally stump Trump
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Zelder posted:By staying in the same polling position for twelve days, Jeb can build up enough speed to finally stump Trump The classic Blue Shell Gambit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Can a delegate chosen at a caucus decide to go against their assignment (ie. a faithless elector)?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Sebadoh Gigante posted:Can a delegate chosen at a caucus decide to go against their assignment (ie. a faithless elector)? They can, but it's rare. They get picked because they were one of the biggest proponents of their candidate at the meeting, not just some guy who was like "I like this candidate I guess".
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
fishmech posted:They can, but it's rare. They get picked because they were one of the biggest proponents of their candidate at the meeting, not just some guy who was like "I like this candidate I guess". Not always. There's horse trading involved sometimes ("caucus with us and we'll let you be a delegate") and oftentimes it's a struggle to find people who will be a delegate. But your delegates are meant to be elected from your preference group - still, someone could change their mind between caucus day and the county convention.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Didn't Ron Paul supporters do the faithless delegate thing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Yeah, and the GOP changed the rules so now they can't take over like that again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
The punditocracy: Iowa edition https://zippy.gfycat.com/GlossyUntidyAtlanticsharpnosepuffer.webm https://zippy.gfycat.com/EvergreenBowedAmoeba.webm https://zippy.gfycat.com/SoupyYellowElectriceel.webm
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
Iowa margin between Clinton, Sanders shifts as errors found http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...rrors/79877898/
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
It's almost as if a natural gas trader makes for a lovely political analyst
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Pragmatica posted:Iowa margin between Clinton, Sanders shifts as errors found quote:Party Chairwoman Andy McGuire the day after Monday's caucuses said no review would be conducted, and that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s narrow victory over Bernie Sanders is final. As the delegates have not voted yet and are not bound isn't this not true?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:As the delegates have not voted yet and are not bound isn't this not true? It's final in the same sense that Santorum was the official winner of Iowa last time, but Ron Paul was the eventual delegate winner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Like, delegates are actual people, how can you be unsure of the count?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
The stuff reported on the websites is the preliminary data either from the reporting app or when they called in to give the info to an actual person. The final numbers come from the tally sheets filled out by each precinct chair and signed off by representatives of the campaigns. The chairs send those to the state party via the mail. The discrepancies are almost certainly due to human error when they reported the totals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
losonti tokash posted:The stuff reported on the websites is the preliminary data either from the reporting app or when they called in to give the info to an actual person. The final numbers come from the tally sheets filled out by each precinct chair and signed off by representatives of the campaigns. The chairs send those to the state party via the mail. The discrepancies are almost certainly due to human error when they reported the totals. And in addition, there's been discrepancies practically every year, because precincts get run by pretty much random people in nearly 1700 locations, with not even a manual voting machine to simplify recordkeeping.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
So I was the captain for Bernie, and my chair was a Bernie supporter. This physical tally sheet was just handed to me after we submitted the counts on the app. He told me to put my name on it and sign it. But I actually read what I was looking at, and it was the numbers from the night. It was like an official math work sheet. I asked him, and he said he would fill it out later, but I told him I would just fill in my numbers since I was putting my signature on it. This sheet was like an after thought to him because of the app for reporting. Just makes me wonder. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Jesus, that's not good. I hope that didn't happen too much, but probably no way to tell. :/
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Every 4 years we pretend that Iowa is first because they're used to these caucuses and they have so much practice with them. We're in good, experienced hands. Every 4 years and one day we're reminded that Iowans gently caress it all up on the margins because at least half the time someone who doesn't actually know what they're doing is in charge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
losonti tokash posted:Jesus, that's not good. I hope that didn't happen too much, but probably no way to tell. :/
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 02:11
|
|
