Posted on 02/06/2020 6:09:16 AM PST by dynachrome
Not Rounding Errors - It's Supposed To Be This Way Because of the way the math was done at the caucuses, many precincts wound up with an extra delegate that got "assigned" to one of the candidates at the end of the caucus. We were able to look at worksheets from 18 precincts that were posted on Twitter. We found a strange process where numbers below .5 were being rounded up in multiple precincts. See the photos above for more examples.
Six of the precincts had the unusual "rounding up." One seemed to be a tie - which may have been decided with a coin toss. Of the six precincts with the "rounding up" - 4 were given to Buttigieg, 2 to Biden, and 1 to Warren.
We posted the results on Twitter, and at that point received an explanation about the math. We had originally called them "Rounding Errors." But it turns out they are not rounding errors. This is exactly the way that the Iowa Democratic Party wants the votes to be counted. As seen above in the instructions on page 15 of the Precinct Leader Manual, if there are extra delegates after the 2nd round of voting, the extra delegates are assigned to the candidate with the "highest decimal below 0.5."
There doesn't appear to be any fraud here. Just a bizarre and arcane set of rules.
(Excerpt) Read more at smartelections.us ...
Yep
Why round in the first place. Why not carry as much accuracy forward as possible until the very end. And then why not display the number to the hundredths place. Was it something stupid like the results display could only display two characters? ##%. With close races you need to display more precision and without any rounding. Isn’t this basic programming?
It cannot escape the American People that the incompetence of the Iowa Democratic Caucus is a microcosm of what the entire USA would be like if the Democrats were able to seize control.
To allow the Democrats to seize control of the USA would be national suicide.
On the other hand, President Trump's competence, benevolence, honesty, integrity, puissance--in fact, his greatness--are obvious to all Americans. The honest acknowledge this.
To entrust the leadership of the USA to this highly competent, brilliant, and benevolent man is an easy decision for the wise.
Only a fool would entrust the nation to these incompetent, corrupt, self-serving, HATE-filled, dishonest Democrat politicians.
Iowa held hostage—day four.
Let my people go!
1. Vast majority of polls, if not all, had Bernie as the leader going into the Iowa Caucus, Buttigieg in second, and Biden 3rd or 4th although there were concerns Biden was falling.
2. The “gold standard” final Iowa poll that CNN was to have a hour long program on was scrapped due to a complaint from Buttigieg.
3. On the advice of the DNC, just 2 months prior to the caucus, the Iowa Dem Party decided to not use the traditional call in vote reporting method and instead use an app that was still in the process of being put together.
4. The consensus of experts in this field conclude that using mobile, internet technologies for vote reporting is a bad idea period, not even considering the fact that it was a new app that was just put together. You don’t have to be an expert, it’s common sense.
5. There has been no explanation given as to how and why the highly questionable decision to use the app was made other than the generic “to make the vote reporting easier.”
6. The creator of the app has received payments from both Buttigieg and Biden in the recent past for “other” services purportedly not related to the app.
7. On the night of the Iowa caucus, with no official results in, Pete declared victory and Biden declared he’d be leaving Iowa with his share of delegates when the storyline should have likely been “Bernie wins, Biden fails to get in top 3.”. Bernie’s internal numbers showed Bernie in the lead.
8. The first results were released at 5:00 ET the day after the Iowa Caucus, with just 62% reporting, Buttigieg had a 2% lead over Bernie Sanders. No explanation given why they decided to release this particular data. No decent explanation given why only 62% of the results could be released 24 hours after the caucus when it usually only takes an hour or so.
9. It is now 40 hours since the Iowa Caucus started, and we only have 71% reporting and Buttigieg has less than a 2% lead. We are now nearing two full days of Buttigieg claiming victory with incomplete results that are contrary to Bernie’s numbers showing him winning and no explanation given as to why they decided to release these results in this manner in such a close race.
10. If Bernie does in fact come out the winner in Iowa, it is clear the way Dems handled this helped Biden and Buttigieg and hurt Sanders. Even if the app debacle was simply a debacle and not a nefarious plan, the Dem Party still had it in their control to release only the full results when they knew it was a close race for first instead of allowing Buttigieg to claim victory using incomplete results for 2+ days.
11. When you consider all of the above in light of what happened during the 2016 primary, when the Dem Party clearly favored Clinton over Bernie, one must conclude it’s more likely than not this was all a planned stunt to hurt Bernie and not simply an accident.
Supports:
quote:
The vote reporting app “was quickly put together in just the past two months, said the people, some of whom asked to remain anonymous because they were not authorized to speak publicly. And the party decided to use the app only after another proposal for reporting votes — which entailed having caucus participants call in their votes over the phone — was abandoned, on the advice of Democratic National Committee officials, according to David Jefferson, a board member of Verified Voting, a nonpartisan election integrity organization.
The app used by the Iowa Democratic Party was built by Shadow Inc., a for-profit technology company...Shadow’s involvement was kept a secret by Democratic officials through the caucuses.
“The consensus of all experts who have been thinking about this is unequivocal,” Mr. Blaze added. “Internet and mobile voting should not be used at this time in civil elections.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/02/03/us/politics/iowa-caucus-app.amp.html
quote:
Buttigieg’s campaign paid Shadow Inc., the company behind the Iowa Caucus app, $42,500 in July for text messaging software, campaign finance records show. The software was not related to that developed for the Iowa Caucus.
Other candidates and Democratic parties, including Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and the Texas Democratic Party have also contracted with Shadow Inc. in the past for services similar to those purchased by the Buttigieg campaign, federal campaign finance data shows.
https://apnews.com/afs:Content:8464590602
Vox is showing 97% reporting
https://www.vox.com/2020/2/4/21123008/iowa-caucus-live-results-2020
Pete Buttigieg 550 26.22%
Bernie Sanders 547 26.07%
Elizabeth Warren 381 18.16%
Joe Biden 331 15.78%
Amy Klobuchar 255 12.15%
Andrew Yang 22 1.05%
Tom Steyer 7 0.33%
Uncommitted 4 0.19%
Other 1 0.05%
Iowa 2020 Presidential Democratic Caucus Round 1
Last updated: 2/6/2020, 10:47:56 AM
CANDIDATE VOTES PERCENT
Bernie Sanders 42,672 24.74%
Pete Buttigieg 36,718 21.28%
Elizabeth Warren 32,007 18.55%
Joe Biden 25,699 14.90%
Amy Klobuchar 21,896 12.69%
Andrew Yang 8,660 5.02%
Tom Steyer 3,001 1.74%
Uncommitted 955 0.55%
Tulsi Gabbard 326 0.19%
Michael Bloomberg 214 0.12%
Other 158 0.09%
Michael Bennet 146 0.08%
Deval Patrick 49 0.03%
John K Delaney 9 0.01%
96.94% reporting (1711 of 1765 precincts) | 172,510 total votes
Second Round
Iowa 2020 Presidential Democratic Caucus
Last updated: 2/6/2020, 10:47:56 AM
CANDIDATE VOTES PERCENT
Bernie Sanders 44,753 26.53%
Pete Buttigieg 42,235 25.04%
Elizabeth Warren 34,312 20.34%
Joe Biden 23,051 13.67%
Amy Klobuchar 20,525 12.17%
Andrew Yang 1,752 1.04%
Uncommitted 1,410 0.84%
Tom Steyer 407 0.24%
Other 201 0.12%
Michael Bloomberg 20 0.01%
Tulsi Gabbard 15 0.01%
Michael Bennet 1 0.00%
John K Delaney 0 0.00%
Deval Patrick 0 0.00%
96.94% reporting (1711 of 1765 precincts) | 168,682 total votes
Sorry the formatting suck. I don’t have time to clean it up.
The media narrative is that it was incompetence and blunders. Baloney. The REAL narrative is that they wanted to dampen enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders.
I have no idea. As I said to my wife earlier—and throughout my career, a standard work order would specify this. A stress test would have shown the problem.
The caucuses are trying to cover up the fact that they have the WORST slate of candidates in modern memory and are unable to compete.
Minimal testing will always come back to bite you.
Also a good software engineer would have insisted on a better spec and then testing to prove it out. Wonder if junior coders were to blame.
wow.
I don’t know the difference between how I was trained 40 years ago when learning BASIC and FORTRAIN, but spec’ing out was discussed literally in the first semester when functions were discussed.
Programming languages might change, programming logic doesn’t.
And certainly, if this is how they are programming for other companies, I would be auditing my code—and my financial auditors because I bet you will find a shitload of adjustments in your books.
They're working on it. Give them time.
Meanwhile the crazy democrats aren't willing to count raw votes, they have to cook their own data. If you like candidate x, who's well liked in most of the state but not just in your tiny precinct, your vote for x doesn't get to count. It gets reassigned to another candidate your neighbors liked better. Many lefties don't like man modified foods, but they seem to like man modified votes. So Bernie, who allegedly got 16% more raw votes than Pete is trailing him in their man made up SDE (State Delegate Equivalents) category. Don't ditch Iowa, just enforce one man, one vote on its Democrats.
Ya. It is the same. Understanding how to define variables is an important step in programming. An improperly defined and constrained variable will give incorrect results.
Actually modern software languages give the programmer a lot more control over variables to the point where it can be “dangerous.” “With great power comes great responsibility.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.