The IDP results are still riddled with errors.
They are mathematically incoherent. In some cases they don't conform to what local precincts are reporting.
They can claim what they want. Thankfully, the press isn't bound to just account. That's where we come in. Let's dig in.
They are mathematically incoherent. In some cases they don't conform to what local precincts are reporting.
They can claim what they want. Thankfully, the press isn't bound to just account. That's where we come in. Let's dig in.
Let's preface by saying IDP is doubling down in a new way by now also projecting national delegates. This is a major red flag because the results are erroneous.
Also: IDP results are still republished as is on some media sites. A few added disclaimers of errors; but why relay?
Also: IDP results are still republished as is on some media sites. A few added disclaimers of errors; but why relay?
1) Dubuque 31 is still distributing an extra delegate than allocated.
I'm starting with this bc not only is it silly to have a precinct have an extra delegate; but also I reported yesterday that precinct sheet had right number of delegates.
I'm starting with this bc not only is it silly to have a precinct have an extra delegate; but also I reported yesterday that precinct sheet had right number of delegates.
Note: I contacted IDP with a request for comment about "Dubuque 31" this morning. I asked them about my reporting that their reported result does NOT match the results of the local math sheet. They have not responded. But they can't say they had no clue they are wrong.
2) "Des Moines 14". One of most glaring errors still wrong: IDP is doubling down on idea that 31 > 50: 31 votes earns you more delegates than 50 votes. Error costs Sanders 0.28 SDE.
IDP says local sheet is off. This doesn't have to bound our independent reporting of results.
IDP says local sheet is off. This doesn't have to bound our independent reporting of results.
3) Washington-Roselle in Carroll County remains incorrect. Buttigieg is given an extra delegate that should go to Klobuchar. (This is 0.11 SDE)
4) There is still an extra delegate for Buttigieg in Guthrie Gold; it should go to Sanders. (It is "only" worth 0.0857 SDE.)
4) There is still an extra delegate for Buttigieg in Guthrie Gold; it should go to Sanders. (It is "only" worth 0.0857 SDE.)
5) In Dubuque-45, rounding is inaccurate in a way benefits Sanders. It's 2-2-2. It should be 3 Biden, 2 Buttigieg, 1 Sanders.
This, like everything else on this thread, has been public for days. Not correctd, & listed on sheet of errors IDP says it won't correct.
This, like everything else on this thread, has been public for days. Not correctd, & listed on sheet of errors IDP says it won't correct.
6) "Ocheyedan Precinct 0500", in Osceola, still incorrect. It should be 1-1-1 between Buttigieg, Sanders, and Klobuchar; instead it's 2-1 Buttigieg.
@jhobfoll flagged this first many days ago; Sanders is viable, should have one.
This, again, not corrected & not listed on sheet.
@jhobfoll flagged this first many days ago; Sanders is viable, should have one.
This, again, not corrected & not listed on sheet.
@Jhobfoll 7) It may not affect "Top 2", but relevant to abundance of errors: some affect others too.
"Sioux City 5" is still reporting an extra delegate than it's allowed. That extra del went to Biden.
I reported this 24 hours ago. IDP isn't bothering to even say what local sheet says.
"Sioux City 5" is still reporting an extra delegate than it's allowed. That extra del went to Biden.
I reported this 24 hours ago. IDP isn't bothering to even say what local sheet says.
@Jhobfoll I can go on. There are 7 *counties* reporting more dels (& thus more SDEs) than they's meant to.
See @CoatsandLinen below.
IDP is saying it's bound by local sheets.
1) That's untenable.
2) At least one local sheet has correct #.
See @CoatsandLinen below.
IDP is saying it's bound by local sheets.
1) That's untenable.
2) At least one local sheet has correct #.
@Jhobfoll @CoatsandLinen 9) 2 (small) precincts in Decatur still show exact same results, @CoatsandLinen & I find.
Wrong in one of two ways. Either there's a missing precinct (& a duplicated one). Or: delegates count is wrong because they're not meant to be allocating same # of delegates anyway.
Wrong in one of two ways. Either there's a missing precinct (& a duplicated one). Or: delegates count is wrong because they're not meant to be allocating same # of delegates anyway.
@Jhobfoll @CoatsandLinen 10) Woodbine still gives a delegate (worth 0.09 SDE) to Sanders that should be Warren's.
11) Des Moines-80: A big one. A delegate still goes to Buttigieg that should go to Sanders. That should be a net of 0.56 SDE for Sanders.
(Both reported days ago; IDP doesn't list either.)
11) Des Moines-80: A big one. A delegate still goes to Buttigieg that should go to Sanders. That should be a net of 0.56 SDE for Sanders.
(Both reported days ago; IDP doesn't list either.)
@Jhobfoll @CoatsandLinen 12) Separately from all this, many results are incorrect but also effectively incorrectable. That includes groups that dissolved tho they were viable; and groups that were left viable though they were not.
@CoatsandLinen just researched the latter:
@CoatsandLinen just researched the latter:
@Jhobfoll @CoatsandLinen 13) Des Moines County's 3rd precinct is very incorrect, per what the county's co-chair told @CoatsandLinen today.
Said there were about 140 fewer voters than IDP is now reporting. [Note: What she told us of county delegates would mean no change for Sanders/Buttigieg.]
Said there were about 140 fewer voters than IDP is now reporting. [Note: What she told us of county delegates would mean no change for Sanders/Buttigieg.]
@Jhobfoll @CoatsandLinen There are other errors. I think you get the picture.
Namely that, results are unreliable and largely unverified.
One next step could be (for DNC to call) to change plan & divorce allocation of national pledged delegates from them. Possibilities:
Namely that, results are unreliable and largely unverified.
One next step could be (for DNC to call) to change plan & divorce allocation of national pledged delegates from them. Possibilities:
@Jhobfoll @CoatsandLinen Finally: Please don't mistake my demands for clarity, for corrections, & for respecting what occured Monday with a view that system could have worked.
Tens of thousands of people were disenfranchised in Iowa; many more de facto excluded. Please read both:
Tens of thousands of people were disenfranchised in Iowa; many more de facto excluded. Please read both:
