Forum Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Forum Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Forum Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Forum Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
CLICK STATE TO SEE:
"WATCH LIST"
Marked with: 
"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with: 
...
|
| (IA) 12/07 - State: Iowa Caucus Watch... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7101
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, November 16, 2007 - 2:06 pm: | 
|
IOWA CAUCUS WATCH
Iowa uses a presidential candidate selection process called a "caucus" instead of publicly run elections. It should be possible to provide the key features necessary for democratic elections using the caucus system, but in Iowa, the following problems afflict the caucuses:
1) Parties control access to information, including details on precinct results. Parties do not consider themselves subject to Freedom of Information, or public records requirements. When elections are run by public agencies, citizens can request and examine copies of almost all records. This does not apply to the caucuses, leaving holes in the citizen oversight process.
2) Some precincts will use voting machines, run by secret, proprietary software. Black Box Voting received complaints after the 2004 Iowa caucus from attendees who said the voting machine results did not appear to match the preference group distributions in some locations.
3) Some locations, according to reports received by Black Box Voting, diverged from the "public counting" procedure whereby citizens physically moved into preference groupings. In a properly run caucus, citizens will physically gather together in groups supporting each candidate. This allows a form of counting in public: Any attendee can see and count the number of persons in each grouping. We received reports that some locations took shortcuts, handling preference groupings and re-groupings solely on voting machines.
4) Lack of transparency during the final accumulation of all precinct results. Properly run caucuses will have transparency at the precinct level. But even properly run precinct level caucus totals lend themselves to manipulation farther up the chain, during the results accumulation phase.
Unless the above problems are eliminated, Americans should assign a vote of no confidence to the Iowa caucuses, because though they will appear to be grass roots-driven, in fact they will be controllable by political party leadership.
The BBV Caucus Watch Project
1. RESIDENTS AND NON-RESIDENTS: Please notify Black Box Voting if you are willing to help with a strategic public records initiative designed to see if we can open up the caucuses to public records requirements. We will communicate with you privately if you are willing to participate.
2. IOWA RESIDENTS ONLY: If you live in Iowa, please plan to attend a caucus. There are two ways to do this:
(a) If you are a registered member of any party that holds a caucus, attend as a caucus participant.
(b) If you are an independent or do not wish to register with a party attachment, under Iowa laws the caucuses are public meetings. They must allow you to attend and watch.
Either way, we need as many citizen reporters as possible. Black Box Voting will be glad to provide you with a checklist of things to watch for. Whether or not you use our Caucus Watch checklist, all citizens are encouraged to post reports of the caucuses in the Black Box Voting Election Protection section for Iowa. If you are allowed to bring laptops for your observation, you will be able to post contemporaneous reports in live time. Make sure to report on the issues outlined here.
3. RESIDENTS AND NON-RESIDENTS: Caucuses and voting machines: Caucus rules require precincts with only one delegate to use paper ballots, but do not specify that those ballots must be hand counted. Precincts with more than one delegate are not required to have paper ballots.
We need to find out as soon as possible which locations plan to use voting machines. Those locations will need stepped-up citizen oversight. Please help us map out Iowa counties and precincts with regard to caucus voting machine use.
If you feel you have enough information to jump in and start right now, go right ahead. Post information in the appropriate county as soon as you have it.
If you would like more detailed tips and suggestions, please contact Black Box Voting to indicate which efforts you'd like to help with, and we will e-mail or mail you information privately with instructions, depending on which Caucus Watch action you volunteer to help with.
Contact e-mail: crew@blackboxvoting.org
Phone (limit to 5 min. please, congested): 206-335-7747 or 425-793-1030
Mail:
Black Box Voting
330 SW 43rd St Suite K
PMB 547
Renton WA 98057 |
From the Mailbag
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mailbag
Post Number: 203
Registered: 10-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 8:13 pm: |
|
From an individual involved with Iowa Democratic party
quote:Democrats do not use machines. Democrats do not do straw polls in the Iowa caucuses. We do not push buttons or have some organized conspiracy to throw the counts by purposely not counting attendees. In your conspiracy theory, everyone in the precinct would have to be in on it since any one person can count the individuals in the groups. In my precinct in 2004, we counted off out loud.
Someone was pulling your leg...probably a Republican. Counts can vary from the beginnin of the caucus until the end since no one is required to stay or even stay in their group. They forfeit the opportunity to be counted if they move, but that is their perogative. People can also make mistakes in counting since they are just volunteers from the neighborhoods, that is why it is wise and recommended that each group's representatives count along with the precinct secretary and chair. As is sometimes the case when dealing with volunteers, there are some chairs that get a little heavy-handed in the proceedings. Their word is not law and the precinct can call them on any missteps they make. Each precinct starts out with a trained temporary chair and elects a permanaent chair and secretary from the group. If the temporary chair is not elected to be the permanaet chair, they serve in an advisory position since they have been trained on the procedures and how to fill out the paperwork documentation.
Even if you believed there were 2 reports from 2004, that does not explain your vicious attack of the Iowa caucuses. This type of speech is inflammatory. I didn't read the rest of your email since now it has just become noise. I was told you never admit when you are wrong and now I see that is correct. It is disappointing ince there needs to be a voice for change in electronic voting but that person needs to be credible.
|
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7172
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 8:05 pm: |
|
As you can see from the posts Jim March is contributing, we have been asking specific questions to clarify, in writing, the procedures.
The Iowa Caucus Watch Project is not aimed only at Democratic caucuses, it is aimed at both.
We are awaiting answers especially from Polk and Black Hawk counties to learn whether there will be any variations in procedures in larger counties.
The most significant problem remains the lack of formal documentation indicating public posting of the detail reports by precinct. Without posting results at the precincts and a public posting of the aggregate by precinct, this becomes very analogous to the VoteHere concept "you can check your vote".
Yes. Each precinct can check their result themselves, but unless the Parties post the precinct results along with the aggregate totals, it's easy to play the "hide the pea" game. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1654
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 10:41 am: |
|
Bev,
Doesn't the precinct process lead to the allocation and selection of delegates to a COUNTY caucus or convention, which THEN IN TURN selects the state's national convention delegates?
When we hear about "winners" and "delegate counts" coming out of a caucus state, aren't we REALLY assuming we know how a process several steps ahead will come out? Are the delegates to the county-level process REQUIRED to vote a certain way, or are they "free agents"? Ditto the convention delegates to the Presidential nominating convention. Are the rules the same for each party.
I could go on about the INCREDIBLE difference between the two parties' processes in my state, but that's for another time and place. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7175
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 4:59 pm: |
|
Kurt, yes, I think you're right.
The delegates are not required to vote that way, though there is of course great pressure to do so.
But yes, I see it as a problem that the "winner" of the Iowa caucus is announced, without a meaningful way to audit or even confirm those aggregated precinct results until (at best) two months later. The caucus is Jan 3, the county conventions are not until March. Many presidential candidates will be forced to drop out of the race by March. The national convention is even later, usually in the summer.
What makes this time lag and lack of transparency on the aggregated results so important is that national media and fundraising machine focus a huge amount of weight on the winner announced by the PARTY.
Unless the party releases the precinct results detail along with their announcement of the aggregated total, really this just means the state political party gets to select which candidate gets the media and funding boost, because their announcement may or may not match the authenticated results at the individual precincts, and it would be very difficult to tell if the state party announced the right winner.
Months later, a large and obvious skew may be apparent but by then, the damage to candidate viability will be done -- and a small skew may not be detected or reported. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1656
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Bev,
BINGO! I am totally amazed (and I'm just sick enough that I have been an Iowa Caucus watcher since I was a teenager) to hear hard-sounding percentages announced on network TV about the Iowa results when they have to be AT BEST a good educated guess about delegate strengths.
At worst, they MIGHT be total fabrications.
I shudder when I think of the weight the media gives this thing. It is fascinating and disturbing all at the same time.
It DOES have a "town meeting" appeal of a sort to it, though. Very "retail". |
Jim March
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jimmarch
Post Number: 174
Registered: 5-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 7:29 pm: |
|
Well we're getting yet more info from the Democratic side. They claim to be sticking to an ironclad set of statewide procedures downloadable here:
http://iowafirstcaucus.org/caucus_information.php
The first link is pretty general but the second is very detailed. If indeed they're ALL following this, it's a good sign.
Now to see what the GOP is up to...
(from Bev: Beg to differ, Jim. Read those more carefully and see my post below. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4166
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 3:51 am: |
|
Has anyone ever looked at past election to see whether there was a difference in the announced results, compared to how delegates later voted? (At count level as well as state level.)
Course with the lack of hard records it might be hard to know whether anything was stated accurately, but it might be interesting to check.
What kinds of checks take place at the County and State level caucuses, that are not exposed to the same media attention? Are there observers? |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1659
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 6:25 am: |
|
Catherine,
What might frustrate that (and usually seems to) is that FREQUENTLY a candidate earns delegates out of Iowa, and by the time the national nominating convention comes around, that candidate's campaign is but a nostalgic memory.
I think one time recently, nearly everyone "bagged" Iowa because Sen. Tom Harkin was, at that point, a candidate. He about swept the Iowa delegates. By the time the convention happened, I think it was a Clinton Coronation at that point. Or maybe it was the Dukakis year. I'm not sure.
The "mish-mash" of party and state prcedures here in the nominating process leads to one overarching conclusion - despite their best attempts to APPEAR that it is otherwise, the EFFECTIVE control of the Presidential nomination process still resides with a relatively small number of party insiders. Not as much as it once did, but still pretty much.
All that seems to be missing from the "smoke-filled room" is the smoke. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7176
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 7:33 am: |
|
Kurt, you're right.
And no, Jim, I read those procedures in detail before I ever posted this. They do NOT deal with release of the aggregated detail results.
They do deal with the local integrity issues in each precinct, but you are dead wrong about the accumulation phase. Please show me the text in those procedures that protects the tallying phase from fraud.
Yes, an individual precinct can check ITS OWN results LOCALLY, but there is no way for the public, or even the county political party, to check the statewide total.
This is very analagous to the concept put forth by VoteHere -- not in terms of technology, but in terms of where the switch can occur. While each local precinct can LOCALLY check its results, once all the results are amalgamated into a pool, there is currently no way to break out their result from the accumulation.
It's like:
Your precinct voted for Johnny.
The total of the 1900 precincts in the state voted for Susie.
Trust us, some of those other 1,899 precincts added up so Susie won. But we're not going to tell you which or let you add it up for yourself.
You know nothing about the other 1899 precincts.
Each precinct can check their own (but can't check that their own is correctly represented in the accumulation). The full set needs to be published at the same time as the accumulated results in order to know the total is correct. |
Jerry Depew
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jdepew
Post Number: 3
Registered: 1-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 7:35 am: |
|
V. Kurt Bellman, take heart! Yes the caucus result is ultimately altered as candidates drop out of the running before the Iowa county conventions in March. It's unavoidable--we can't keep them in the running if other states's voters support different candidates from those that prevailed in Iowa. But the dropout candidates are still represented by their die-hard supporters at the county convention. Those die-hard citizens then use their best judgement on whom to back among the remaining candidates. They can still try to get themselves promoted to the state convention.
The announced results of Jan 3 will NOT be a guess about future delegate strength. They will be the result of plugging the precinct result into a formula that would lead to the announced result (if no candidates drop from the race or alienate their supporter delegates before the county and state conventions occur). What else could we do? How would you read the caucus results?
Bev is correct that there was a gap in the verifiability of results in the 2004 caucus. Precincts called in their results via a touch tone system that leaves no "paper trail." I objected to this method because I was a pct chair and could not trace my phone call thru to the ultimate news of the Kerry upset. I asked the Iowa Dems to post to the internet the results of each precinct so that we could know our numbers had been properly received. I THINK THEY WILL DO SO THIS TIME. I know they are working on it.
Republicans? Don't know about them.
Reporting on Iowa at http://www.iowavoters.org
|
Jerry Depew
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jdepew
Post Number: 4
Registered: 1-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 7:48 am: |
|
Catherine,
You asked--
Has anyone ever looked at past election to see whether there was a difference in the announced results, compared to how delegates later voted? (At count level as well as state level.)
My answer---
There is little to be gained by such an inquiry. Since candidates always drop out between Jan and March, some delegates to the county convention are free to migrate to new candidates. Naturally the county convention will produce results different from the January caucuses in the same county. This dynamic will repeat itself again before the June state convention.
Yes there are observers. I invite you to attend my pct caucus and my county convention. They are held in public buildings. One caucus in Dubuque was web-cast in 2004. It is so public that its openness is considered a drawback by some critics: "You mean there are no secret ballots?!?!"
That's right. You gotta stand up and be counted at Dem Party meetings in Iowa.
Republicans do a straw poll, often on blank (BLANK!) pieces of paper, or so they say. So it's secret and it has tracebility problems. Dems may have neither problem this time if they get the internet aggregation plan in place.
Reporting on Iowa at http://www.iowavoters.org
|
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7177
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 8:02 am: |
|
Jerry,
You are doing really great work. I have heard also that they are thinking of posting all results on the Internet. Then, of course, the devil in the details is how promptly that is done. There's no reason it can't be done at the same time as posting the aggregate results, when they are announced. With 1900 precincts, most likely it's entered into a spreadsheet, and the spreadsheet can just be turned into a pdf and posted.
Great work, and I'm hoping we'll see a definitive answer on that soon.
I'll be mailing an update to our Iowa citizens as soon as we get that answer, or late next week, whichever comes first. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1662
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 9:38 am: |
|
Jerry,
I guess that's my implied question. Are the delegates selected at the precinct level for the county meeting always pure "die-hards"? I think that's important to the process. But with as many years as you've been at this process, you PROBABLY have that well in hand. (Nothing breeds good procedure like practice at it!)
Also Jerry, on my list of "do before you die" things is to come to Iowa to observe the last few days before the caucuses and the actual event in a decent-sized place. Just can't do it this year.
If there is a lack of transparency at the aggregation phase, that DOES trouble me. (Note the conditional "if".)
What I find is that there is a popular notion out there (including here at BBV) that the aggregation of local election results is not verifiable. In my experience, it's COMPLETELY verifiable, if one wants to do some legwork. Is it "easy" or all "laid out" for you? No. But it is all verifiable if you want to track it down.
You may get some "why do you want that" questions from a dope or two along the way, but the whole trail is TYPICALLY there, even if it's not widely known. |
Jerry Depew
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jdepew
Post Number: 5
Registered: 1-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 12:25 pm: |
|
Dear V. Kurt,
You asked--
Are the delegates selected at the precinct level for the county meeting always pure "die-hards"? I think that's important to the process.
My answer--
No, they are often political junkies like me who really want to go to the county convention, whereas the recently-inspired citizen who shows up at caucus for the first time is typically satisfied to have had his say by empowering me to advance as a delegate for his favored candidate.
We junkies can be passionate, too, of course, but not to the extent that we will skip the county convention after being selected to attend just because our candidate has later dropped out of the race.
The junkies hold the party together thru thick and thin. We don't all agree on who should be the candidate, so which junkies (or newcomers) get to advance to the county convention depends on which candidate inspires the most members of the general public to show up on Jan 3.
It's a good system if you believe in political parties. If you prefer primary elections, you have to admit they tend to weaken the party.
Reporting on Iowa at http://www.iowavoters.org
|
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1663
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 12:44 pm: |
|
Jerry,
I'm pretty much OK with that. So tell me, speaking hypothetically here, let's say for the sake of argument you are a "second phase" caucuser for Clinton because your initial choice, let's say Biden, did not achieve "viability" in your precinct.
BUT... you are known in your neighborhood as "Mr. Democrat". Big GOTV man, getting absentee ballot applications for shut-in neighbors, whole slate signs on your lawn, the whole schmeer.
In the REAL WORLD of the Iowa caucuses, do you have a realistic shot at being elected to the county convention, or will that spot go to an "original" Clinton backer?
Just curious.
And if a "Mr. Democrat" gets those nods typically, EVEN IF they weren't an original "true believer", doesn't real small-d democracy take a bit of a hit?
I like parties just fine. But where does the line fall where the rank and file decides, rather than the insider? |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1664
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 1:00 pm: |
|
Also Jer,
I'm not sure I get your point about primaries "weakening" the party.
Clearly, open primaries do. I'm not sure I buy that closed ones do. You won't find a much more closed primary state than PA. |
Jerry Depew
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jdepew
Post Number: 6
Registered: 1-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 10:30 pm: |
|
Kurt,
In a large caucus I'd guess the Clinton folks would be reluctant to choose me (Biden guy) as one of their delegates. My caucus is so small that we are lucky to find 3 people who want to attend the county convention. So last time i got an Edwards slot even tho I had announced myself for Kucinich on the opening of the session. Kucinich failed to get 15% of the caucus so he was not able to send any delegates on the county. Same thing for Gephardt and Kerry. Those folks also threw in with Edwards, giving Edwards control of the caucus and winning two of our three seats at the county convention. By that time (late March) Kerry was in the driver's seat nationally, but at the county convention the Edwards and Dean delegations each stuck together and thus claimed some of the county's seats at the state convention for themselves.
Primaries "weaken" parties by allowing candidates to go straight to the casual voter via TV and direct mail. Fringe candidates can motivate enuf fringe voters to capture some primaries even as the party regulars tear out their hair at the prospect of having, say, George Wallace as Dem nominee (1968) or Ron Paul (2008)
I'm getting pretty far off the topic of BBV.
Reporting on Iowa at http://www.iowavoters.org
|
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1667
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 7:33 am: |
|
I think it's all topical, Jerry, for this reason:
One of the philosophical "underpinnings", if you will, of the culture of BBV, is an appreciation for small-d democracy.
(Am I not correct here, Bev?)
The "party insider" nature of the caucus system DOES INDEED trouble a lot of people, some more so than others.
As a pretty life-long junkie myself, I am less troubled by party control tnan most. I guess I never saw it as good or bad. It just....WAS!
For background, (you've been WONDERFULLY forthcoming - I thank you for the education) I am a "party animal" on the R side in a county with an EXCEPTIONALLY WEAK party apparatus on BOTH sides, R and D. We are surrounded largely by counties where at least the R side is run with varying degrees of "iron fists". You know the kind, if you dare run in a Primary against the endorsed candidate, the party tries to ruin your life. An R who runs against the endorsed R is a worse danger to the party than any D, apparently.
Sometimes I am happy to live in a county where the parties are so inept. Our voter independence is a liberating thing. But it DOES cost us heavily in statewide "clout".
Thanks again for the education. This is probably all second nature to you, but this is information the nation at large needs and seldom gets.
You have done a valuable public service for us, sir. Thank you. |
|
|
