NYT: We Checked the Iowa Caucus Math. Here's Where It Didn't Add Up.

[Devil Child]

Since the troubled Iowa caucuses on Feb. 3, the state Democratic party has revised the results for about 100 of the state’s 1,765 precincts, and officials are still scrambling to verify dozens more precinct results after reports of widespread inconsistencies.

There has often been some fuzziness in the way the results of the Iowa caucuses were calculated and reported. But this is the first year that Iowa Democrats released raw vote counts. The transparency provided the public with its first opportunity to check the complex math that determines which candidates get the delegates they need to win the Democratic nomination.

And in many cases, the math did not check out. In such a close race — Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., is leading Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont by a tenth of a percentage point — even small mistakes can add up.

Here are some of the inconsistencies and errors The New York Times uncovered in an analysis of the Iowa Democratic Party’s results.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/14/us/politics/iowa-caucus-results-mistakes.html

Inconsistencies and errors noted by the NYT review include: recorded vote totals do not add up in 79 precincts; candidates without enough supporters won delegates in 21 precincts; too many delegates awarded in 8 precincts; delegates calculated improperly in at least 28 precincts; and data entry mistakes in at least 100 precincts

[jr1118x]

1. Gee

Gee wonder who was the beneficiary of these "mistakes".

[Dem2]

3. No idea, who do you think?

[Ghost Dog]

5. The MIC candidate?

Surprise me.

[MH1]

8. Help me out... what do you mean by "MIC candidate"?

and to whom do you refer?

[Cal Carpenter]

4. I think it was probably just a clusterfuck of errors

I don't think it was a coordinated effort for or against anyone in particular.

If all the errors went in one direction, that would prove me wrong. But even if they do an analysis of every precinct we'll still never really know what the voters' intention were. Meh.

[squirecam]

2. Maybe that's why iowa

Should lose its spot going first.

[Devil Child]

7. I'm cool with that, also ditching caucuses and closing the primaries

I’d much prefer we have a condensed primary voting weekend to maximize turnout and avoid the media fueled bickering.

[squirecam]

9. Except Iowa

Can’t change to a primary.

[Iggo]

10. ...because...?

Seriously, is it in their constitution?

[squirecam]

11. Republican gov won't allow it

Nt

[Celerity]

6. Iowa is on the path to becoming the new Florida. nt

[dsc]

12. One thing that stood out to me is that they are using the Hamilton method

to apportion delegates but explaining it in a much more confusing way. The Hamilton Method (and yes it is that Hamilton) is to round all numbers down which will produce some number of extra delegates. The extra delegates are awarded to candidates based on what the decimals are. The highest decimal gets the first extra delegate, the second highest gets the next and so on until the extra delegates have been distributed. Instead they have the workers standardly round the numbers, either using too many delegates or too few. If too few then they give the extra delegate to the decimal closest to but under .5. I assume if they use too many they take one away from the lowest decimal above .5. I think this is a far less intuitive way to explain what is the same method. I can see why people are making errors if they are being so complicated.