Nevada Democratic Party: What’s the difference between an app and an “iPad tool”?
Do they both cause discrepancies that favor every candidate except for Bernie Sanders?
- Tmess2Lv 73 months ago
Neither a tool nor an app cause discrepancies that favor every candidate but Senator Sanders.
Both are merely a means of reporting results and neither calculate the results. The accuracy of the reports depends upon the volunteers working in each precinct. And in each precinct, the report has to be signed off on by the representative of each candidate in the precinct.
The rules in each precinct are not that hard.
Step One -- Get everyone signed in.
Step Two -- Have people divide into groups supporting each candidate.
Step Three -- When everyone is in their group, have them complete and hand in the pledge of preference (first alignment) form.
Step Four -- Count the pledge of preference forms for each group, Add the group totals together to get the number of participants. Multiply that by .15 to get the "viability" threshold.
Step Five -- If a group is above that threshold, that candidate qualifies for delegates and those voters do not get a second alignment form. If a group is below .15, that group is not yet viable. The voters in that group get a second alignment form. Those people are told that they can either join a viable group or can work with the other non-viable group to create a viable group.
Step Six -- After everyone has realigned, have the realigned voters complete and hand in their second preference forms.
Step Seven -- Count those second preference forms (adding any votes for already viable groups to the first preference votes for that group). Count the total number of first and second preference votes (as some people may have left). Recalculate the viability threshold. If there are still votes for a non-viable candidate, record those votes but set that number to the side.
Step Eight -- Then calculate each viable candidate's percentage of the "qualified vote" (the vote for viable candidates). Multiply that percentage by the total number of delegates.
Step NIne -- As the result in step eight will leave most candidates with a whole number and a fractional remainder (e.g., 3.42 delegates), initially round each candidate's vote to the nearest whole number. Now add the number of delegates won by each candidate together and compare that number to the number of delegates that the precinct gets. If that number is above the total number of delegates for the precinct, start taking delegates away from the candidate with the lowest fraction above 0.5. In other words, if you have one delegate too many after rounding, the candidate with 3.62 delegates would lose the fourth delegate and the candidate with 2.71 delegates would keep the third delegate. (Similarly, if the rounding gave you two delegates too many, both of those candidates would lose their fractional delegate and the candidate with 4.82 delegates would keep their fifth delegate). Similarly, if the rounding gave you too few delegates, you would add delegates to the candidate that was closest to 0.5 delegates. (This process would sound less complex if the rules stated it as add the whole number of delegates and compare to number of delegates for precinct. Then fill the shortfall in delegates by going down the list based on the greatest remainder -- i.e. a fraction of .82 is higher in priority than the candidate with .65 wo is higher in priority than the candidate with .43.) If and only if two candidates have the same fractional remainder and are competing for the last delegates, resort to the tie-breaker (typically drawing cards). There is one exception to the rounding rules, every viable candidate gets at least one delegate (i.e. the candidate with 0.83 delegates has a higher priority than the candidate with 1.95 delegates) unless the precinct has more viable candidates than delegates.
Apparently in Iowa, from the forms that have been posted on-line, it was this ninth step (basic rounding rules) that caused people trouble in completing the forms. Considering that a fifth grader could do the work at step nine, how folks screwed up is difficult to explain. And, as noted above, every candidate's representatives had to sign off on the report. So if the precinct chair and secretary screwed up at any step, the precinct representative had a chance to bring the error to the attention of the chair and secretary before the caucus proceeded to the next step. And at the final step, each candidate's precinct representative had a chance to double-check the math. Ultimately, each precinct representative had to sign off that the report was accurate and correct.
So if the discrepancies in the precincts are harmful to Sanders that says something about the quality of the volunteers devoted to Sanders and their training. And, if you can judge a candidate by their supporters, that lack of competence is not a good sign.
- Anonymous3 months ago
In Iowa they had big technical problems because a new app which they had made for the caucus and which they were supposed to use to transmit the results. In Nevada there were reports of technical problems. But the Nevada Dems are saying that this isn't an issue with a new app. Instead they're using already existing apps. Apparently what happened was that some ipads which they were using failed.
- Anonymous3 months ago
As if you give a sh*t about Bernie. You're just trying to rile up his supporters. How transparent can you get?