February 6, 2020
Results Continue to Come in From the Iowa Caucuses But the Math Doesn't Seem to Add Up
by Beth Baumann
Townhall.com
Results from Monday night's caucuses in Iowa are still coming in. As of now, 92 percent of precincts are reporting and South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg is currently in the lead, with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in a close second.
Many of us have wondered what the hold up is and why the math is taking so long to calculate who came out victorious.
According to Lulu Friesdat, the founder of SMART Elections and a writer for The Hill, it looks as though there are rounding errors in the precinct math worksheets.
Thread. We found #RoundingErrors in 30% of the precinct math worksheets that we examined from the #IowaCaucus. Each "rounding error" gave one extra delegate to a candidate, over 50% of the time the extra delegate went to @PeteButtigieg. https://t.co/I3KTkbtHdr #SMARTelections pic.twitter.com/btcjCivtbk
— Lulu Friesdat (@LuluFriesdat) February 6, 2020
The #RoundingErrors could lead to a significant number of delegates. They were in 30% of the precincts we examined. If 30% of 1678 precincts have an extra delegate assigned this way, it could be approximately 500 delegates. Buttigieg is currently leading Sanders by 18 delegates pic.twitter.com/A4Pga3YcAE
— Lulu Friesdat (@LuluFriesdat) February 6, 2020
The #RoundingErrors were discovered by Teresa Basey a member of the #SMARTelections #CountTheVote team. #RoundingErrors #Iowacaucus2020 https://t.co/I3KTkbtHdr pic.twitter.com/8lLqnNVBEG
— Lulu Friesdat (@LuluFriesdat) February 6, 2020
We were only able to see a small sample of caucus math worksheets. We would like to see more. https://t.co/I3KTkbtHdr #RoundingErrors #SMARTelections #IowaCaucusResults pic.twitter.com/PLkRlPYio7
— Lulu Friesdat (@LuluFriesdat) February 6, 2020
If you have photos of more worksheets plz send them to us at contact@ smartelections.us. Look and see if there are #RoundingErrors & post them with that hashtag.https://t.co/I3KTkbtHdr #RoundingErrors #SMARTelections #IowaCaucusResults pic.twitter.com/tWAumbwdwQ
— Lulu Friesdat (@LuluFriesdat) February 6, 2020
If you were at one of these caucuses and know how the extra delegate was assigned, plz let us know. contact@ smartelections.ushttps://t.co/I3KTkbtHdr #RoundingErrors #SMARTelections #IowaCaucusResults pic.twitter.com/duLeyA1HvX
— Lulu Friesdat (@LuluFriesdat) February 6, 2020
"When Awarding Delegates, Decimals of .5 and greater are rounded up and decimals less than .5 are rounded down to the nearest whole number," the sheets instructions say. That's pretty straight forward math.
But here's where things get tricky. A rule in the Iowa Democratic Party's Precinct Leader Manual says that if the number of viable delegates is higher than the number calculated based on those who voted and the candidates still in the race, an extra delegate is given out. That extra delegate is given to the candidate with the highest decimal below .5. If there is a tie then a coin toss takes place for that extra delegate.
According to Friesdat, the Iowa Democratic Party has yet to respond to her inquiry about delegate calculations.
She did, however, point out one interesting fact: the delegate calculation is based on the original number of voters, not the final round. That means people are being counted for votes even when they're not voting when their candidate is no longer considered viable.
Here's an example:
Look at this precinct. They start w/ 70 voters. But only 61 finish voting. The instructions still say to divide by 70. So the math comes out wrong & you wind up with a LOT of extra delegates that get "assigned" to the candidate w/ the highest decimal below .5. That's not voting. pic.twitter.com/cMsgk7mdgJ
— Lulu Friesdat (@LuluFriesdat) February 6, 2020
Regardless of the outcome, one thing is certain: this process is a mess. It's confusing, complex and, quite frankly, out-of-date.
The Iowa Democratic Party said they were double-checking the results to make sure they were accurate. Now we know why.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2020/02/06/results-continue-to-come-in-from-the-iowa-caucuses-but-the-math-doesnt-seem-to-a-n2560862
| 
