Learn to code

It's not like the Iowa Dem caucus was trying to solve a difficult problem--but apparently it was beyond the skills of whatever novice they turned the coding problem over to.

Which still doesn't explain why three days later they still haven't managed to finish the calculations by pencil.  There's just no explanation for any of this that should lead a voter to conclude he can improve life for Americans by voting for these people.  Incompetence?  Corruption?  Inextricable mix of the two?  It's all the same result, and it's what human institutions always get when the guiding principle is "you just have to leave us in power because Reasons."

6 comments:

Dad29 said...

the guiding principle is "you just have to leave us in power because Reasons."

You are being far too kind.

The Guiding Principle of the (D) Party is "We WILL TAKE power no matter how."

In the case at hand, they proved incompetence, but not any change in their insatiable quest for total power. The term "Totalitarian" is fitting.

Christopher B said...

I commented on this article over at Instapundit, too.

While there isn't a smoking gun, some of the language in the article keeps confirming my suspicion that the issue wasn't the app, it was the data. The focus on the app and security is a red herring. As you note, this wasn't a difficult problem and it didn't involve anything truly sensitive to collect and transmit. In the end it was just names and numbers.

The article finally admits that the root cause was the data collected failing what are described as quality control checks. The app developer takes a dive for that problem but, from my experience with IT users, they will invariably blame the system when the root issue is their own faulty input. (I've done it myself before investigating why something didn't work as expected.)

I think those quality control checks showed that there were rampant procedural errors going on between the first and second rounds of voting, as well as just bad input from inexperienced people. There's always been plenty of anecdotal evidence that the Democrat's caucus process is rife with bizarre decisions, ornery voters, and controversies. I think they started seeing hard numbers that just didn't add up and went into full panic mode trying to get clarifications for what they were seeing. In the process they pulled off all the resources that could have been used to collect data from precinct leaders who were having actual technical issues with the app, and compounded the problem.

Anonymous said...

As of 11:04 AM today (2/5) they were up to 96.8% of precincts reported and verified. That's a heck of a way to run a railroad (or election, or anything for that matter.) Bad data handling plus untried software leads to less than stellar anything, which might be the biggest lesson for everyone to come out of this fiasco.

LittleRed1

raven said...

Give them a break- All their practice is in counting late votes again ,and again ,and again till the desired result is in-
A timely return is just not in the play book.

E Hines said...

Learn to code

Can't. There aren't enough miners in Iowa.

root cause was the data collected failing what are described as quality control checks.

Couple things on this. One has to do with the quality of data collected and the quality of reporting of those data. Apparently, not one of the 1700, or so, precinct captains received any training at all on the app.

The other is, based on the empirical results and my years of experience as a Test Director for a major defense contractor, these guys couldn't possibly have tested their app before they marked it Duty and went operational with it.

As of 11:04 AM today (2/5) they were up to 96.8% of precincts reported and verified.

As of 1517 CST, same day, they've made it all the way up to 96.9%. Apparently licking the pencil between tick marks is time consuming.

DNC Chairman Perez is insisting that the IDP now completely recanvass Iowa.

Eric Hines

james said...

For some no doubt completely irrelevant reason, the caucus fiasco reminds me of my stint on a grand jury, and the case of a man found in a parking lot near a just-burglarized home. He was carrying a TV, and had tomato smears down the front of his shirt. He swore he just "found the TV over there" and had not noticed that his shirt was unclean when he put it on that morning. I suppose he figured he had nothing to lose with the claims--who knows, maybe somebody would buy the story.



(The lady of the house had left some tomatoes to ripen on the kitchen windowsill.)