Caucus Results Should Not Be Determined by Coin Flips!

As the latest news unfolds out of Iowa it is becoming increasingly clear the Democrats in that state need to leave their whale oil lamps and covered Ticonderoga wagons behind and at least move into the 20th century with their caucuses! I mean, Jeezus Peace, using coin flips to determine outcomes?!

Good grief, the nature of the early Iowa caucus is not even remotely like the general election in November where we must have a winner (two presidents can't 'share' power). Also, given the Iowa Dem caucus is not 'winner take all'  it doesn't matter if precincts end up perfectly tied in some results. You simply allot the delegate votes equally - if odd in number in one precinct (e.g. 3) combine with another precinct or precincts with similar ties and split the results evenly. Better yet, chuck this whole antiquated system and replace it with the simpler caucus modality of the Iowa GOP, which just counts ballots.

As salon.com has reported:

"The results of the first caucus in the U.S. presidential primary election came down not to actual votes, but to a coin toss — or, rather, to multiple coin tosses."

As noted in the previous blog, Sen. Sanders and Hillary Clinton had a virtual tie in the Iowa caucus Monday night. With 99 percent of precincts reported, there was just a 0.2 percent difference; Sanders had 49.6 percent of statewide delegate equivalents, and Clinton had 49.8 percent.  The Iowa Democratic Party said the results were “the closest in Iowa Democratic caucus history.” Because they were tied, in order to determine who would get the delegates, coin tosses were reportedly held in at least seven precincts. There were two coin tosses in Des Moines and four more in Ames, Newton, West Branch and Davenport, the Des Moines Register reported. Clinton won all of these.  

But why determine outcomes by coin tosses? The answer inheres in the nature of the antiquated caucus process held by Iowa Dems.  Rather than counting actual popular votes like the GOP, only percentages are assessed at a given caucus by a precinct captain. As I noted in a previous blog post, caucus goers assemble in distinct groups to support their candidate at different precincts. Each group must reach at least 15 percent or it is "non-viable" . Hence, O'Malley's supporters were quickly left non-viable at all precincts so either had to join an "undecided" group or merge with Sanders or Clinton's. It is clear from seeing the course of events that 0.5% of O'Malley supporters remained but never joined to the extent that the respective percentage support for the two main candidates could be broken. To resolve the percentage equivalences for Sanders and Clinton, at least seven precinct captains resorted to coin tosses. (Another video, which the Des Moines Register did not report on, also emerged, showing a seventh coin toss in Johnson County.)

But this was not Las Vegas, it was a venue for election, a democratic process - not a random one. To have therefore awarded Hillary the overall  'win' by virtue of taking 6 of 7 random coin flips going was an abomination and an affront to democratic principles.

The events Monday night clearly call out not only for a full investigation by Sanders's' team but also the Iowa Dems changing their caucus procedures to make them consistent with those used by the GOP. As I also noted, the GOP caucus goers also assemble, and may listen to a brief spiel for one or other candidate, but at the end simply write the names down on ballots and tabulate them. 'Ties' are averted by the simple expedient of blending caucus vote counts from different precincts if, for example, all the numbers are equal at one precinct. They don't do coin tosses.

Clinton ultimately got 700.59 state delegate equivalents, while Sanders got 696.82 state delegate equivalents, a mere 3.77 point difference, according to the Iowa Democratic Party. In other words, although six is a small fraction of the thousands of overall county delegates, these coin tosses — all of which Clinton reportedly won (despite the low probability)  - effectively pushed her over the edge, giving her the extra statewide delegate equivalents that granted her an additional Iowa delegate.

 It is time now that Iowa Democrats raise a hue and a cry and demand the absurd caucus procedures -  including the "tradition" of delegate equivalents - be put to rest and  instead employ simpler direct paper ballot tabulations like the Republicans. We don't need cumbersome, draconian baloney in  our voting processes and we sure as hell don't need random chance determining winners at the level of state caucuses!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/sam-husseini/65816/iowa-the-media-and-political-establishment-lose

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/65810/some-surprises-and-warnings-in-the-iowa-numbers

No, Trump Isn't The Only Crackpot In the GOP Clown Cavalcade

Scott Walker - got away with a number of wacko assertions and actions while the media was all over Trump.

IN the land of the batshit crazy the guy that screeches the loudest and craziest is king. Well, maybe not quite - if you're only paying attention to the squeakiest wheel-  and ignoring  the others that might be just as batshit nuts. (Which could support Chris Hayes' thesis that the Donald's nutso spiels on immigration etc, are giving cover to his GOOPr compadres to tilt even more wacky Right).

After Trump's latest outburst on John McCain, asserting he really "wasn't a war hero because he got captured",  the whole media eye was focused on 'the Donald' while letting the other GOP screwballs get away with rhetorical murder. But what can anyone of intelligence expect from the corpora-press which has the attention of deformed ants and is incapable of blinking, walking and chewing gum at the same time, which is to say in this case, following three screwballs at once.

The Des Moines Register, to its credit, put Trump in his place with a blistering editorial ('Trump Should Pull the Plug On His Bloviating Side Show') where we read that Trump's recent comments:

"threaten to derail not just his campaign, but the manner we choose our nominees for president....his name calling has turned him into the distraction with traction- a feckless blowhard who can generate headlines...not by provoking thought but by provoking outrage."

Which is a no-holds barred calling out, including for Trump to bow out, but misses the point. That is, where is the responsibility of  the idiot Trump supporters for fueling and spurring on this obnoxious gasbag?  I mean, think of it, were it not for these supporters (''crazies" as McCain called them) Trump would have no oxygen, no credibility (via polls) at all. He'd be stuck somewhere around the 1 percent marker along with Lindsey Graham.

So, one cannot call out Trump as a "distraction with traction" and "threatening how we choose our nominees for president" without also calling out the numskulls and looneytunes who prop him up and fill his campaign venues. THEY are also responsible, and indeed, like the pro-Confederacy jokers, disclose how far our country has gone into the crapper. So far apart from Thomas Jefferson's ideal that the "minds of the people must be improved", i.e. to hold their government accountable.

Then there is the blind eye turned to the other crackpots, as I noted. Which makes one believe that it's fine to raise a hullabaloo about one whackjob candidate insulting one guy (McCain) but not other bozos insulting whole classes of citizens. (Ok, Trump did this too with his Mexican remarks, but his recent insult to McCain has left the other clowns - namely Jeb Bush and Scott Walker- to do their own thing).

Bush, for example, when asked at one gathering over the weekend if he'd allow a "path to citizenship" for immigrants, gave a flat out "NO!" for an answer. This is the character who wants Hispanics to believe that because he can speak a bit of good Spanish he's almost one of them. Don't be fooled for a second. This slime ball is no better than his disgusting warmonger brother, only better at concealing the imp within.

Then there's Scott Walker, the candidate who decided to quit college just months short of a degree, disclosing an unserious nature and an inability to complete a complex objective. Not only did this jackass (the same weekend as Trump's gaffe) sign a state budget that erodes tenure for college professors,  he also signed a 20-week abortion ban into law with zero exceptions for rape or even severe fetal abnormalities.

Even worse, which should command every thinking American's attention (and that of the Des Moines Register) is that Walker - if elected- would do whatever he "deemed necessary to terminate the Iran nuclear deal from day one even it means a military attack".

In other words, this stupid turd is gung ho to bring about the very scenario depicted in the horrific movie Threads,
The film is about 1hr and 47 mins long (and last I checked was available online), Brit-made, and if it doesn't scare the bejeezus out of you, you are either already brain dead, or a zombie and amongst the walking dead.

'Threads 'isn't for the squeamish or faint-hearted but I do think all those yammering for war or confrontation with Iran need to see it and let its message soak in. In fact, I think every critically-thinking red blooded citizen ought to see it, if for no other reason to be motivated to let reps and current presidential candidates  know this thing isn't on - not now or ever. If we could contain the Soviet Union with its 12,700 ICBMs for over 40 years , we ought to be able to contain Iran.

Though based on a hypothetical Soviet-Russian invasion of Iran, which possibility is no longer - since the present day Russians have plowed enormous investment monies into Iran and its reactors, the projected invasion of a U.S. and NATO strike force is accurate to any unfolding future scenario say if Walker got in and did what he said. From the initial strikes on a nuke reactor at Isfahan, to the accidental sinking of the Russian ship Kirov in the Straits of Hormuz, to the accidental exchange of 2 tactical nuclear weapons (with radiation blowing over Pakistan) and the escalation to a full scale nuclear war - with 3,000 megatons exchange (210 megatons on the UK alone) this movie will keep you on the edge of your seat.  Oh, then there's the scene at the end- following the timeline after the exchange and  nuclear winter- when a bat-eared infant with a pig face is born from a survivor.

But why did the media not hold Walker up to scrutiny the same way as they did Trump. Or, is the prospect of setting off a nuclear war less significant than saying a guy is no war hero?

In fact, Walker's whole spiel about what he would do regarding terminating the Iran deal is laughable. It was like looking at some drunken frat boy giving his rendition of a drunken presidential candidate at one of his former frat's beer keggers. It show why, when the clown was still a Milwaukee Alderman, most serious people dismissed him as either ignorant or brainless. No one believed he'd rise any further - certainly not to governor-  but I guess too many overestimated the IQs of Wisconsin voters who didn't do their due diligence.

Last night on 'All In',  Hayes' guest Matt Duss put the Walker episode into perspective, observing:

"Walker says here's what I'm going to do....put sanctions back...and I'm gonna talk to our allies...like he's going to make a few calls to our allies in Europe and they're just going to say 'Okay, you know you're right! This deal that we painstakingly negotiated two years...you're right it's just horrible...so forget it let's scrap it'   This is just unserious. It's completely ridiculous".

Which suggests the problem of the most bombastic getting the most attention while less bombastic (but crazier) get no notice at all, is again  - a problem of the media. If the media then paid less attention to Trump's bombastic balderdash and more to truly insane declarations and actions like Scott Walker's,  American voters would be prepared to think more and react less. But since the media only focuses on the campaign circus and most outrageous rhetoric and behavior, the crazier statements (made with less oomph) get ignored.

Look also at candidate Lindsey Graham this morning on CBS Early Show claiming Obama is "the Neville Chamberlain of our time because he believes over the next fifteen years Iran is gonna change its behavior....'cause this deal doesn't do a damn thing requiring them to change their behavior".

Showing what a stooge he is, and as he was exposed in a recent piece ('Why The Iran Deal Is A Risk Worth Taking')  in TIME by Joe Klein. Klein noted how warmonger Israeli PM Bibi "tells gullible American visitors what they want to hear" about Iran, the bomb and all, and one Israeil intelligence operative then laughing at "the brazen idiocy of it all" (implying Bibi is an idiot for telling it, but Americans are bigger idiots for buying it).  And then there's Lindsey Graham who "used the same line at an Iowa state dinner"

In other words, Graham didn't really believe it either. So he's another two faced turd who employs rhetoric when it suits his fancy. He talks about the big Iran  "nuclear threat" and Obama being "a new Neville Chamberlain"  to get constituents to dumb down just like Bibi does with  the gullible 'Muricans visiting him who are foolish enough to give him their ears and attention.

Yes, the manner in which we choose our presidential nominees is indeed "threatened" - but primarily by the media.   This corpora-media seeks to pose presidential campaigns as horse races as opposed to serious political processes in which all policy positions by whatever candidate need to be given their due and scrutinized. Not just those of the loudest or most brash.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/pierre-tristam/63095/donald-trump-isn-t-the-exception-he-s-the-republican-prototype