Des Moines Register calls for audit of Iowa results: 'Something smells in the Democratic Party'

In a strongly worded editorial on Thursday, The Des Moines Register called on the Iowa Democratic Party to move quickly to prove that Monday's results are correct.

The piece titled “Editorial: Something smells in the Democratic Party,” starts out: “Once again the world is laughing at Iowa.”

It gets sharper from there. “What happened Monday night at the Democratic caucuses was a debacle, period. Democracy, particularly at the local party level, can be slow, messy and obscure. But the refusal to undergo scrutiny or allow for an appeal reeks of autocracy,” the DMR reads. “The Iowa Democratic Party must act quickly to assure the accuracy of the caucus results, beyond a shadow of a doubt.”

The editorial cites Clinton’s razor-thin victory as too close “not to do a complete audit of results.”

The newspaper editorial also said there were too many opportunities for error to arise.

“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,” the editorial reads. “Too many of us, including members of the Register editorial board who were observing caucuses, saw opportunities for error amid Monday night’s chaos.”

The editorial ends by calling on the state's Democratic Party to “work with all the campaigns to audit results. Break silly party tradition and release the raw vote totals. Provide a list of each precinct coin flip and its outcome, as well as other information sought by the Register. Be transparent.”



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/des-moines-register-audit-iowa-results-218731#ixzz3zFJFoBIC
 
Makes perfect sense to me. If 20 show up for a caucus and ten are for and ten are against how do you decide who wins? Wait until one defects or just flip a coin. If you want mob rule, well, then one man one vote and welcome to being governed by the most populated state.
 
It seemed strange to me that the results narrowed in favor of Sanders as the evening went on...as if the Clinton camp want to spin an initial impression of a bigger win. Maybe his precincts took longer to come in, but she did better in the big urban centers where the wait is typically longer.

I've read that a caucus isn't subject to state election laws...the party can do anything it wants.
 
Makes perfect sense to me. If 20 show up for a caucus and ten are for and ten are against how do you decide who wins? Wait until one defects or just flip a coin. If you want mob rule, well, then one man one vote and welcome to being governed by the most populated state.

Its really cool when you continue to flip the coin and the same person wins every time.
 
yes, I think in trading they call that a trend
many a man has gone broke betting against a trend that seems suspicious
It's not the same. Markets trend 30% of the time. Having tails show up 6 times in a row is a 1/64 chance.

It was obvious they gave Iowa to Hillary. The DNC chair of Iowa is a major donor to Hillarys campaign. She drives a car with a vanity plate "HRC 2016". This is the same woman who refused an audit of the votes or a review of each precincts tallys.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top