Final Iowa delegate numbers:

[unc70]

24. This is the opposite of what you claim

In 2016, the Sanders campaign suspected that there were BBC a lot of "errors" in the Iowa cactus results. The successfully argued to the DNC that there was no paper trail and lax accountability in Iowa's reported results. This has been a persistent issue going back decades -- for example by Edwards and others.

The Iowa results have always relied on the honesty, trust, and competency of those conducting the caucuses. But squirrelly results and cell phone videos finally pushed the DNC to impose a semblance of order on the process. For the first time, the results of the first votes were counted and reported, with a paper trail. Not surprisingly, in spite of better procedures, a paper trail, and increased vigilance, many examples of the flawed results have been documented. Certainly not as many as likely happened in the past, but still a lot.

Not damned if you do, damned if you don't. It is damned if you don't get it right. No excuse for incompetence. And now you seem to be blaming those who reported this incompetence in previous cycles!