|
Peachstapler posted:The only sure way to prevent this from happening again is to not allow Iowans to vote. I'm from Des Moines, and I say kill em all!
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
Not a Step posted:I'm from Des Moines, and I say kill em all! It only has roughly 3 million people. Killing them all wouldn't be too costly or time intensive IMO.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Gyges posted: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. If your goal is to get a precise vote count, you run a primary, not a caucus. The caucuses have other goals and the results reflect that. But that doesn't mean that the caucuses aren't working.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Joementum posted:If your goal is to get a precise vote count, you run a primary, not a caucus. The caucuses have other goals and the results reflect that. But that doesn't mean that the caucuses aren't working. You don't have to convince me that caucuses own. I just find amusement in the fact that every cycle begins with think pieces extolling the wisdom of the Iowa caucus goer, and ends in the days following Iowa with the gnashing of teeth from stories about how the reported tallies are now being amended. Causing supporters of one of the losing campaigns to desperately clutch at imagined silver linings which will lead to their guy really being the winner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
I'm not clutching to anything, and I'm not some disillusioned BernieBro. I just moved to Iowa, and this was my first caucus here coming from a state that does regular primary ballots. It was a really interesting experience overall and had a ton of fun prepping and volunteering. I got to meet some awesome people, and ended up with some new neighborhood contacts that I wouldn't have met without the caucus experience. But... I think the IDP should have called it a tie and left it at that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Pragmatica posted:I'm not clutching to anything, and I'm not some disillusioned BernieBro. I just moved to Iowa, and this was my first caucus here coming from a state that does regular primary ballots. It was a really interesting experience overall and had a ton of fun prepping and volunteering. I got to meet some awesome people, and ended up with some new neighborhood contacts that I wouldn't have met without the caucus experience. But... I think the IDP should have called it a tie and left it at that. Except there was a clear winner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Pragmatica posted:But... I think the IDP should have called it a tie and left it at that. You sent some delegates to support Hillary or Bernie right? You think its not possible to count them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Except there was a clear winner. "Clear" by a margin that triggers automatic recounts in any normal election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Except there was a clear winner. In a sense. In reality, the winner on the night of the caucus is just an estimate anyway - the actual delegate fight happens later. The only reason SDE is reported at all is out of convention to figure out who "won" on caucus night.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You sent some delegates to support Hillary or Bernie right? You think its not possible to count them? The system to how the delegates are allocated is super confusing. My precinct only had 86 people, but there were some that had 300-500 people. I can't imagine having to count all of them, and then recounting over and over if there are discrepancies. Hell, at my precinct we had some one that didn't sign in correctly, so our total was off. I ended up counting 59 people over 5 times, and the Hillary captain counted 27 but refused to recount her people and said I was wasting time and keep counting wrong. Then, the chair made and announcement and someone came up and said they didn't know they needed to sign in. Ughhhh. So to do a "recount" you would basically need to contact everyone and ask who they supported. There is no written record except for what the chairs report. And that would be insane. Pragmatica has issued a correction as of 04:14 on Feb 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Yeah, the delegate formula is bonkers. I was on the phone with this poor precinct chair for 15 minutes because the Hillary group had split in half to take a delegate away from the Bernie group and that went over about as well as you'd imagine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
I attended a mock caucus in Nevada and was superdisheartened with how confusing the whole formula is. Trying to explain what delegates are, how they're calculated both before, during and after the caucus (all three of which use radically different formulas), and how the threshold concept works was a nightmare. And that was with a room full of activists and volunteers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
Nanomashoes posted:"Clear" by a margin that triggers automatic recounts in any normal election. But this is a caucus, so it's a clear winner. Please try to keep up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Nanomashoes posted:"Clear" by a margin that triggers automatic recounts in any normal election. A caucus is a beautiful, pure, artistic, expression of democracy. Please don't try and ruin it with silly rules that demand a scientifically precise quantification of democracies rendered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
fishmech posted:But this is a caucus, so it's a clear winner. Please try to keep up. And you wonder why nobody here likes you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Thump! posted:And you wonder why nobody here likes you. I don't wonder why sore losers don't like me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
I don't feel the problem here is fishmech. I feel the problem is Iowa.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Peachstapler posted:I don't feel the problem here is fishmech. It can be both
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Peachstapler posted:I don't feel the problem here is fishmech. the problem is trying to tally votes in a three-layer system
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
point of return posted:the problem is trying to tally votes in a three-layer system
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Peachstapler posted:Let us not forget that the concept of the caucus was invented in colonial America and that alcohol was essential to its operation. We really should look at officially bringing alcohol back into the process. People are always talking about the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, but ask them where your free beer or whiskey is and they give you a dirty look.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
point of return posted:the problem is trying to tally votes in a three-layer system The Bernie layer, the Hillary layer, and the Unidentified layer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Gyges posted:We really should look at officially bringing alcohol back into the process. People are always talking about the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, but ask them where your free beer or whiskey is and they give you a dirty look. George Washington was militantly against free whiskey, please read a book.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
Nanomashoes posted:George Washington was militantly against free whiskey, please read a book. He was quite down with electoral whiskey, so long as the candidate paid the proper taxes on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 03:06
|
|