| Well, that was ugly. As I write, there are basically no results from the Iowa Democratic caucuses, hours after everyone went home. Some campaigns are beginning to release their internal numbers, but it would be wise to wait for the official results. The results are intact, according to officials, but the app that was supposed to them from the precincts to the state party didn't work. Ugly. Caucuses are run by the political parties, not the government. State and local officials are in charge, with volunteers mostly handling work at the precinct level. There are paid staff at the state level, but they aren't necessarily experts in elections technology. This isn't exactly a huge surprise. I get plenty of stuff wrong. But I don't know that I've ever been as correct as this one, from four years ago: A lot of people are calling for Iowa to switch to a primary after the slow reporting of Democratic results this year and the botched counting of the Republican votes in 2012. Better idea: Keep the caucuses, but have the state, rather than the parties, run them with properly trained poll workers. Surely officials can pay for this by diverting a small percentage of revenue they raise in sales taxes from the business generated by campaigns and the visiting press corps. Yes, the delays and glitches are an annoyance mostly for the press and impatient campaigns, not voters. And the contests where these problems occurred were in races where there were virtual ties, so delays can be explained. Still: Get it right, Iowa. They should have listened. Iowa's first-in-the-nation status has been under fire on the Democratic side for years; it's very possible that this will be the end of it. Granted, if they can release the numbers promptly and accurately on Tuesday, it's not necessarily a fiasco with any real consequences. I've seen a lot of speculation that the reporting disaster will reduce or eliminate any bounce the candidates who did well will receive going into New Hampshire, but I don't think we actually know that. Yes, the State of the Union speech Tuesday night and the final vote in the impeachment trial on Wednesday may deflate that bounce. But the same thing might have happened anyway. Losing one of the eight days between Iowa and New Hampshire might matter, but even that isn't really clear. Reducing the time between the Iowa results and the New Hampshire primary could even help limit a backlash against the winner. For example, Barack Obama moved up in New Hampshire polls in 2008 after triumphing in Iowa only to have Hillary Clinton win there with a surge of late-deciding voters. Of course, if the count never comes at all, then that certainly will help those who did badly and hurt those who did well. And there may be real effects from the delayed count. It's just impossible to predict at this point. On the other hand, it's unfortunate to see people from both parties spreading conspiracy theories about the breakdown. Undermining belief in the electoral process is a good way to undermine democracy itself. Particularly in a situation in which there's no evidence whatsoever of any deliberate manipulation. Yes, it's natural for people to suspect that there's more to this kind of thing than just rank ineptitude, but most of the time that's all it is. As election law expert Rick Hasen wrote last night on Twitter, "You are much more likely to be disenfranchised by incompetence than voter suppression or fraud." I've long been a defender of the Iowa caucuses. But a large part of that had to do with the advantages of stability in the nomination process, which allows sprawling, decentralized political parties to work together as they compete and cooperate on choosing a candidate. Obviously, there's nothing stable as I write this about the Iowa caucuses, which really does rip that argument to shreds. It may be that we're in for serious change. 1. Excellent item from Seth Masket at Mischiefs of Faction on the invisible primary and the beginning of voting (or at least caucusing. If not, I suppose, counting those who caucused). 2. Dave Hopkins — not an Iowa caucuses fan — on the bungled Iowa results. 3. Ani Kokobobo at the Monkey Cage puts Vladimir Putin in the context of Russian history. 4. Dan Drezner on impeachment and politician incentives. 5. James Wallner on the Senate procedures involved in shutting down witnesses and wrapping up the impeachment trial. 6 And I suppose this is still worth linking to: Nate Silver presents 89 possible Iowa scenarios. | 
◂‹〖DownLoad〗 2020 Falling Full Movie Online released 2020. story: John Peterson lives with his partner Eric and their adopted daughter in ...
Post a Comment