Did Iowa’s Democratic Party Change a Precinct’s Results?
All the more reason to audit Democratic caucus results
Thursday, The Des Moines Register’s Editorial Board called for an audit of Iowa’s Democratic Caucus results.
…too many questions have been raised. Too many accounts have arisen of inconsistent counts, untrained and overwhelmed volunteers, confused voters, cramped precinct locations, a lack of voter registration forms and other problems. Too many of us, including members of the Register editorial board who were observing caucuses, saw opportunities for error amid Monday night’s chaos.
Hillary Clinton was declared the winner with a minuscule two-tenths of 1% victory over Bernie Sanders and some incredibly lucky coin tossing.
Because Iowa’s Democratic Party chair has refused to audit the caucus results. Bernie Sanders’ campaign is doing their part to recount the ballots.
Friday, Ben Jacobs of The Guardian reports that the Iowa Democratic Party changed the altered a precinct’s caucus results, giving a Sanders delegate to Clinton.
In the Iowa Democratic party’s chaotic attempt to report caucus results on Monday night, the results in at least one precinct were unilaterally changed by the party as it attempted to deal with the culmination of a rushed and imperfect process overseeing the first-in-the-nation nominating contest.
In Grinnell Ward 1, the precinct where elite liberal arts college Grinnell College is located, 19 delegates were awarded to Bernie Sanders and seven were awarded to Hillary Clinton on caucus night. However, the Iowa Democratic party decided to shift one delegate from Sanders to Clinton on the night and did not notify precinct chair J Pablo Silva that they had done so. Silva only discovered that this happened the next day, when checking the precinct results in other parts of the county.
…
In an interview with the Guardian, Silva made clear the issue in Grinnell was merely the result of confusion over party rules in an anomalous situation.
The precinct, which is the largest in the state had 925 caucus-goers and the Iowa Democratic party’s formula for apportioning delegates was not capable of fully dealing with circumstances in such a large precinct, he said. This meant that when people left the course of the caucus process, the algorithm wasn’t capable of dealing with the shift in delegates.
As Silva explained it, the Iowa Democratic party’s formula for apportioning delegates left no method of dealing with one delegate in the precinct. Silva had anticipated this and sought clarification from a party staffer and laid out what seemed to be the correct method. When results were reported to the central reporting center in Des Moines, party staffers, who were able to adjust numbers reported in the much vaunted Microsoft app used by the Iowa Democratic party before they were released to the public, unilaterally made changes. And, as Silva noted: “They did it indirectly in my opinion.”
…
Sam Lau, a spokesman for the Iowa Democratic party, only told the Guardian about the situation: “We had been made aware of the concerns in this precinct, and we are in the process of reviewing them with local party leadership. We have received a small amount of flags from both the Sanders and Clinton campaigns, and we are addressing each on a case-by-case basis by working with our county leaders.”
While one delegate wouldn’t change the course of the Iowa Democratic Caucus, it provides credence to calls to audit the results.
Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
This is not an explanation.
What was the formula, what was the allegedly wrong method, what was the shortcut the Iowa central reporting center in Des Moines used, and what would be the correct answer?
I am looking forward to somebody linking to something that gives chapter and verse.
I read that the Des Moines Register reported the coin tosses went to Hillary Clinton, but the Iowa party reported 6 out 6 went to Sanders. I also read that the coin tosses might be reported in an irregular way, and those would not be reported by thepary officials in Des Moines.
I read there were disputes at the caucus sites as to how many people had sided with what candidate, or at least a discrepancy between the individual amounts and the total in the same precinct.
Hillary by the way is claiming not only that she won Iowa and taht in politics only winning matters – not in situation like this where nobody gets elected to anything and you’re only electing a small fraction of the delegates
She’s not only claiming that but that she is confident she will win New Hampshire (!) and that she will not get indicted.
Shades of Florida all over again. Guess who was in charge of that debacle? That is right — DemocRATs. If you want a mess, put a DemocRAT in charge.
“incredibly lucky coin tossing”
That should read “SUSPICIOUSLY lucky coin tossing.” That fact alone is all the reason needed to re-count.
Not that I care one way or the other whether Bernie or Hillary won. I just think the appearance of corruption should be investigated thoroughly, no matter how many times the beneficiaries of that apparent corruption say it’s okay.
Especially when the one who benefits has a 40 year history of corruption.
The democrats cheated?
I am shocked!
Well dang, I’m confused again. Haven’t the Dims been telling us since, well forever, that voter fraud is non-existent?
This involves hitlery, I’m surprised we don’t have five dead hookers and a private server in the mens restroom off I-80 where hitlery visits in drag every other day.
OK, just for giggles. When was the last time that any Democrat, or the Democrat party, was held accountable to either laws, rules, or regulations?
Like I said before, I have literally been a first hand witness to Democrat cheating when I was a kid. I doubt they’ve gotten more honest over the years.
Hillary was able to convert 1000 voters to 100,000 due to her prescience in the Iowa Futures Voter Commodity trading.
Why oh why would anyone be surprised when GimmeThats count the ballots?
It is impossible, as per design to audit a paperless archaic ballot.
However, there is enough video to verify it.
But, do not hold your breath. It ain’t gonna happen.
There is a stagecraft item magicians use, the simple distraction. A magician slipping a playing card up his sleeve will wave his *other* hand dramatically about, drawing your eye away from the operative card-hiding hand. Stage magician devices have distractions built in. The traditional shapely assistant wearing a skin tight sequined one piece is herself a purposeful distraction. My point being that flash and motion and noise and confusion are the perfect environment in which to pull your tricks, stealing votes in this case. Anyone reading Democrat Party primary or caucus rules of procedure cannot help but agree they are incredibly complex and arbitrary, creating chaos so if the stupid voters get it wrong they have the cover of confusion within which to fix it.
Unless you are getting the Dems to pay for it, why bother? We knew from the outset, based on recent history, that Dems will commit election fraud.
Sort of a “given”, since they secretly admire Stalin and his alleged view on “counting votes”.
Fraud is what Dems do best. Lie after lie after lie.