What Happened To The Votes?
Iowa caucus voters had yet to catch their breath and sleep before accusations wired through satellite that cheating had commenced. First, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump accused Texas Sen. Ted Curz of using fear tactics and little white lies to convince Ben Carson supporters to vote for him.
In addition, reports surfaced that Sen. Cruz sent out mailings shaming registered voters for neglecting to vote in past caucuses. With scorn, the letter inferred if behavior repeated a scarlet letter style shame would follow. So much for the democratic right to forfeit voting.
Now it's the Democratic Party turn to deal with accusations of cheating. The Democratic state party officials have confirmed errors found during the process of collecting and counting votes for Iowa's voters.
Bush vs. Gore 2.0.
The Des Moines Register calls for a thorough audit of votes captured in the caucus of Democratic voters. An immense chorus of concerns raised after a "razor thin" victory for Clinton against Sanders. Some reports suggested Clinton was declared the victor based on a coin toss, which won her additional delegates. Also, some Iowan voters expressed concern that some districts had no representative for Sanders -- thus, there is a possibility a vote was disregarded or incorrectly applied to Clinton.
The Des Monies Register editorial board writes, "Once again the world is laughing at Iowa. Late-night comedians and social media mavens are having a field day with jokes about missing caucusgoers and coin flips," it said. "That's fine. We can take ribbing over our quirky process. But what we can't stomach is even the whiff of the impropriety of error."
It's to be noted; the Des Moines Register endorsed Clinton early this year. It appears the Register is accusing the Sanders campaign of possibly cheating Clinton of well-earned votes. The paper has requested a quick but mandatory overview, you know, "for the sake of democracy," to determine how votes were collected and delegated.
Unlike the Republican Party, the Democratic Party does not release the actual number of votes for the candidate. Instead, they reveal by delegates the candidate accrued based on the volume of votes earned.
The Register goes on to say, "Too many questions have been raised. Too many accounts have arisen of inconsistent counts, untrained and overwhelmed volunteers, confused voters, cramped precinct locations, a lack of voter registration forms and other problems," it said.
The paper adds, "Too many of us, including members of the Register editorial board who were observing caucuses, saw opportunities for error amid Monday night's chaos."
In light of the Registers concern, Clinton's team has ramped up calls for a recount. The Clinton team questions how precincts relegated votes regarding delegates. Additionally, Sanders team has joined the chorus of recount requests and calls for a complete "release of raw vote totals at each precinct."
The Curious Case Of Delegate Assigned
Charles P. Pierce of Esquire writes, "If you're keeping score at home, the Iowa caucus process passed ridiculous on Tuesday and it has kept going into whatever is to found far beyond it. Apparently, Sanders won 19 delegates and Clinton seven in Grinnell Ward 1. With no explanation, one delegate was shifted to Clinton. It wasn't discovered until the next day by the precinct chair J Pablo Silva.
Pierce adds, "In the old days, when Democrats knew how to do politics right, a change like this would have required a substantial bribe of whiskey and strippers, as well as a decent county job for the idiot nephew of the country chairman. To paraphrase George C. Scott in Patton, god, how I hate the 21st Century."