county delegate (or delegate equivalent), which is 1600/11000. The six coin tosses would have added up to a total of about 0.9 delegate equivalents, which means that even if they all went the other way, Hillary would still be ahead.

People subtracting or adding 1 from the 701-697 for every coin toss are simply wrong.

That is, the coin tosses were for the 11,000 and there were 1405 state delegate equivalents at play. So, even if the coin tosses had all gone Hillary's way, she would only be +1 and Sanders -1 State Delegate Equivalent.

It's not enough to swing the result.

Say it ain't so!

or maybe the same source that said Hilary was roasted after making a victory speech last night. and 90 precincts were missing! All bullshit.

seems to come from. So I don't think there is anything like a full tally. Or that 6/11,065 matters. But I realize people though tit was state delegates, LOL. Nope.

Why we have ANY states that rely on coin tosses for something of this consequence is well beyond my comprehension.

Actual elected positions in some states have also been decided with a coin flip

They have always had similar ways to break ties. Now you know.

last night. It's getting really out of hand around here.

Thank you for your informed post, Skinner. It is necessary.

But I am afraid your words will fall on many deaf ears, so to speak.

There are three levels of conventions. County, Congressional District, and State. The numbers get whittled down at each one, and the state convention is where the national convention delegates are elected, including all of the superdelegates, or unpledged delegates.

Great explanation here:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/IA-D

So until the actual national convention results, things can be "fluid." Not much, but there can be unexpected results.

no real effect on the national convention. It's not an issue, really. As we will all see, by the time the national convention delegates are all selected, there will be a clear margin between the two candidates and probably a clear majority of delegates on one side or the other.

I'll be very, very surprised if that is not the case. The entire primary system will do just fine. Early results are just that. Early results. Iowa's results represent only about 1% of the total delegate count. It's just not that important, really. Until we've had about 25% of all states' primary results the picture will be very cloudy.

Most states will not end in anything like a tie. In fact, probably only two or three states will be even close to a tie. Iowa is one such state.

This whole thing will clarify itself a lot on March 1. There will be a definite trend established that will affect later primaries far more than Iowa does, I'm sure.

I have attended many county and state conventions. Of course, it is different in a primary state. But people don't realize how important these are, even in the off years.

I have often tried to make some dents in the level of ignorance here, but it seems to have little effect.

I don't see anything dishonest or unfair about how the Iowa caucuses were run. It is a very transparent system. My daughter lived there and went to school there. She was a caucus leader in her precinct. We have property there, and our roots are there. We know people who vote in the caucuses.

I appreciate that Skinner clarified this for people. I think all the posts about cheating, and DWS trying to sway things for Hillary belong in the Creative Speculation forum.

All of us should be congratulating Bernie's people for their great GOTV efforts. If they can do that in the general, and put their tantrums behind them, we will be well on our way to a solid victory, for our nominee, and for the much-needed down ticket offices. And I do think Hillary will be the nominee, whether or not they like that.

It was a good post until you said that.

Read the posts above yours and tell me who is having a tantrum. Who is snarking and trolling and accusing Bernie supporters of being willingly ignorant and deliberately lying, while their cheer leaders wave their pompoms at the snark.

Please don't tell me this is a one-sided nasty battle (tantrum). I am very glad to hear Skinners news because I don't want to think Bernie has been ripped off. I don't want to live in a country that does that. And I don't fall for conspiracy theories...so being accused of the things everyone is throwing at the wall up above makes me pretty disgusted.

Oh Please indeed!

Take the blindfolds off.

Won't change a thing.

I just learned something again, which is why I keep coming back here to DU after all these years


MDN

Coin Flips!11!

Yet another misinformed meme is born.

Thanks for the clarification, Skinner.

Kick

You have to admit you didn't know about this until Skinner posted this, otherwise, you would have already posted it to correct Bernie's children ...

Everybody agrees it was a confusing addition to the evenings activities ... Without instant clarification, people will take it and run with it ...

That's life ...

Ready, fire, aim...

Great, so now we know. There is no doubt in my mind that the snarky meme (complete with graphics!) will continue beyond today.

It doesn't matter, some folks aren't the least bit interested in accuracy. They take things like this and "run with it" around here on a daily basis. This Just so happens that this one was debunked by Skinner himself, otherwise it would have been summarily ignored or shouted down as has been the drill for MONTHS.

Good luck with your anger

isn't usually a pleasant task. The info was in the Des Moines Register for anyone who wanted to inform themselves.

You mustn't believe that crap on the internet, just because someone doesn't race in with a spoon fed rebuttal, is true.

I said the poster would have informed everybody last night about the coin flip ... And that, because they didn't, it might be assumed THEY didn't know those very same details that they hector others for not knowing.

There is a word for that - it's starts with a 'H' and ends in ' Y ' ... And no, it's not a name ...

The 0.2% difference is the difference in precinct delegates. Which were determined by coin flips.

Since IA does not report popular vote totals, precinct delegates are being used as a proxy for the popular vote.

Clinton losing 4 of those flips instead would change the "win" into a "loss" while still not having any real effect on the convention.

of which the precinct delegates are worth a small fraction, about 1/8th.

There were 8 coin tosses within the apportionment for about 11,000 precinct delegates, NOT within the apportionment for the 1405 state delegate equivalents, which is how you're reading it. You're simply wrong on the facts.

If there are approximately 11,000 precinct delegates, then 6 delegates would be 0.00055 or 0.05% (that's 1/20th of 1%).

Put another way: The 0.2% margin between the two candidates is approximately 11,000*0.002=22 delegates. So a swing of 11 delegates from Hillary to Bernie would change the result from a narrow Hillary win to a tie. A swing of 12 delegates would give the (precinct delegate) win to Bernie.

If Bernie won all 6 coin tosses he would still be 6 short of the number he needed to win the precinct delegates.

I think.

but I suspect it will fall on some deaf ears who only want to whine about how corrupt Hillary is so OF COURSE she cheated.

so at least the 8 for Omalley's should be interesting.

This whole caucus apparatus seem to me to be esoteric and needlessly complicated.

Besides, I live in a primary state.

And I hope people listen.

And a difference of 12 precinct delegates could easily make the difference of 3.77 state delegates.

The spread for precinct delegates would be approximately 22-ish. (See my reply above for how I got this number.) I don't think six flips could change who got the most precinct delegates.

The race was close in general, so if there were a lot of close races for state delegates, a small change in precinct differences could have bigger effect on state delegates.

And do we know how they translated into county delegates and then to pledged delegates? In principle I understand your point that a small change could ripple up and change the outcome, but I don't think we actually know (or can know) if that happened. This is already outside my limited understanding of how this caucus works.

The point of my post was to explain that Hillary and Bernie's pledged delegates were not directly determined by flipping coins.

And there's a decent chance Bernie may have won actual voters. He had really high turnout for him in some college precincts, which doesn't do much good when they elect a fixed amount of delegates.

Just as much as I hate my own state's caucuses.

In a small precinct with only two delegates, the threshold for getting a delegate is 25% of the vote. So if one candidate got 25% and the other got 75%, they would both get the same number of delegates -- ONE.

This kind of calculation was being made in precincts all over the state, though with a lower threshold in precincts with more delegates. But do you see how squishy all these numbers are?

The whole system is not precise at all, so starting to talk about the tiny variations related to these coin tosses means we're ignoring the elephant because we're so busy staring at one of his toenails.

between those for Clinton and those for Sanders. In other words 6 doesn't sound like much in 11,000, but if Sanders got 5,499 of the 11,000 to 5,501 for Clinton, then the difference of 6 precinct delegates would be huge. The state won't release the actual numbers (isn't that a surprise) but we know it was very, very close because the difference between the delegate equivalents between the two was only 3.77 and they (delegate equivalents) are derived directly from the numbers of delegates.

We know the delegate count was extremely close, therefore 6 delegates or even 3, might have made a difference.

Americans go around the world telling other countries how to organize elections. And here, in Iowa, we are using coin flips?????

No way. That needs to change. That is a 19th century throwback that we should not use.

And, by the way, the caucus system disenfranchises voters in nursing homes or who work or are very ill when the caucus is held. Extremely undemocratic.

Feel the Bern! Let's make sure all states have election systems that are appropriate for the 21st century.

And no more superdelegates. Could there be anything less democratic than a superdelegate?

Superdelegates are a way of insuring that change is unlikely to happen or at least happens slowly. We don't need superdelegates. Let the people decide. Not the superdelegates.

It was a tie on both the state and local level. The number of delegates awarded to each candidate was almost the same. Eventually, the nominee will be decided by a much larger spread of delegates.

As much as the media wants to make this about a winner and a loser, the fact is that this is a tie.

Coin flips are done when a group is so evenly divided, there is no point in continuing to argue. Just flip the coin and move on.

had a much bigger effect, and most people are ignoring that.

For example, if there's a precinct with two delegates to be assigned, and one candidate gets 25% of the vote,, and the other gets 75% -- they both win ONE delegate. And this was happening all over the state, to a greater or lesser degree. A single delegate can represent a widely varying number of voters, depending on the precinct.

So it's an incredibly imprecise system with incredibly squishy numbers.

But given the messiness of the system, Hillary won. She got 23 delegates to his 21. There is nothing else we can confidently say because the individual voter counts are unknown and may not even have been retained.

My state has caucuses and we tried very hard to substitute a primary. We even got a referendum passed with strong voter support to do so. But our state party went to court and got a judge to agree that the party gets to decide how it selects its delegates, not the voters.

So Dems are still stuck with caucuses while the Repubs in our state get to use the primary. (We have a primary too, but it's just a worthless beauty contest weeks after the caucuses.)

or am I missing something?

https://www.facebook.com/747754388695524/videos/852060561598239/

caucuses suck

She has zero chance of winning in the GE.

...instead of posting about coin tosses that they don't understand, and which almost certainly didn't affect the outcome.

In the end, if Hillary is the nominee, we are all screwed.

Look, we know the press is going to take any little thing and magnify it, but Clinton needs to be a little more careful here as well. You will need our support in the general and perceptions are important.

but I think they actually do get it wrong here. It looks like Steve is adding the coin tosses to the candidates' count of county delegates, of which there are approximately 1600. But I think the coin tosses were to determine precinct delegates, of which there are approximately 11,000. So simply adding an additional county delegate for each coin toss is not correct.

From the Des Moines Register (emphasis added by me):

He apparently got a bunch of text messages telling him he was wrong. Then he tried to explain it correctly but he was still confused.

Watched quite a bit of coverage last night, and all inferences I saw made it appear that the change was for one of the 1,600 county level delegates. This was at a point when the difference in county delegates was only 2 or 3. For what it's worth, I believe you are correct. This is a precinct level distinction, but the misinformation has already been spread far and wide.

A whole lot of hand wringing over nothing in the grand scheme. Nothing is decided now for Iowa purposes anyway. By the time the final allocation of state delegates is determined, there will likely be a clear front runner in this race. The .02% difference and coin tosses will be meaningless, and the actual delegates will start coalescing support around the eventual nominee.

Because I havent seen any. She beats both by a good bit, especially Trump.
Rubio might be another story
And I think her toughest opponent would be Kasich, because he's not crazy & has actually had some accomplishments. Which is why the GOP gave him 2% of the vote last night. Never underestimate the ability of the GOP voter to ignore their best chance!!

delegate can make.

But thanks for the explanation.

Of course the truth must be anything other than the fact that Hillary beat Bernie fair and square in one of the only few states with a demographic that favored him.

After New Hampshire Hillary's campaign will dominate the rest of the country...Hillary will win the Democratic nomination and go into the GE...and there she will wipe the floor with whichever clown is the Republican candidate. She is tried and tested against the right-wing onslaught and will be standing strong after they try another round of the same.

Say hello to Madame President and her husband Mr. President...three firsts: first woman president, first male in the role of "First L...ord", and first time the First Spouse is a former president.

I am dancing on air today.
Congratulations fellow democrats!

(Or something like that.)

You're right, but it's too dense of an argument for people who just want to yell and scream and exploit.

Skinner, thanks for the information.

the odds of HRC winning all 6 out of 6 flips was less then 99.8 out of 100.

And the public perception of the Clintons is that they are less than honorable people who will go to any lengths to advance their position and increase their net worth.

Your analysis is well presented and I'm sure, correct. Unfortunately for Ms Clinton, there is a substantial portion of the public who will never accept it.

It makes more sense to me now.

Since I'm new to all this caucus stuff, I really appreciate the info.

Some reporter was explaining that the coin flips are done when the number of delegates in a precinct are uneven and the actual vote count is split evenly. His example was --if there are, say 5 delegates at play, and each candidate had the exact same number of votes, then the coin flip is done to award the odd delegate. The reporter also indicated that there were at least a dozen coin flips in Iowa last night, and perhaps more, with HRC winning at least 6 of them, but unclear after that.

My question is, at what point would LOTS of coin flips begin to impact the overall outcome? Hundreds?

... and now I need some Tylenol ...

The reporter also said that other states do this as well. Yikes!

and few people are discussing it. It's the official way that delegates are assigned.

For example, in a precinct with only 2 delegates, if one candidate had 25% of the votes and another had 75%, they would EACH get ONE delegate.

In larger precincts, the threshold wouldn't be 25%; it would be 15%. But the basic fact remains: all over the state, single delegates were representing widely varying numbers of voters, depending on the size of the precinct,the proportions of candidates' voters in the precinct, and the precincts voter turnout in the previous two elections.

Some states draw cards

It's way too complicated, archaic, and not how the Democratic Party should be choosing delegates for the Convention.

A simple primary would suffice, with delegates allocated accordingly.

This system lowers participation, which is antithetical to Democratic ideals (we are supposed to the party trying to increase voter turnout, note mute it).

Thank you.

Went against my own "don't bother posting" policy to try and fight the meme being built up.
You said it much better than I, and with more authority.

Primary wars tend to dim people's intelligence, while ramping up their belligerent contrariness, making any communication near impossible.

No way to form a "revolution"...or maybe it is, but not one I'd join.
Sowing discord, especially in petty and false ways, will only destroy the young idealism of new voters that are needed for positive change.

is there anything worse than the caucus system? So much needless complication.

For Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, the virtual tie likely means an even split of the 44 delegates, just under 1 percent of what either would require to become the party’s nominee.

Iowa, then, is not really about delegates. There are delegates at stake, but not enough to make or break a campaign. Just one delegate separated first and third place in the likely Iowa Republican allocation. Cruz will get his eight delegates while Trump and Rubio will each get seven. In terms of delegates, there really isn’t any daylight between the top candidates in either party.

Here’s another key point: Iowa delegates are relatively easy to count. The Republican Party of Iowa was forced by a change in Republican National Committee rules to bind the delegates based on the results of the precinct caucuses. This is a departure from the non-binding straw poll that had been typical for the party previously. Replacing that was a truly proportional allocation plan with no threshold of support required to qualify for delegates.

So there is no guesswork in how precinct caucus support will translate into delegate support for the Republican candidates. There will be no Mitt Romney winning caucus night, Rick Santorum winning two weeks later upon certification, and Ron Paul winning a majority bloc of the Iowa delegates who attend the national convention in Tampa. There are no fantasy delegates in Iowa in 2016.

And although the Democratic delegate rules in Iowa are more intricate, Clinton and Sanders both finished above the 15 percent viability threshold in the overwhelming majority of precincts, and this smoothed out what can often be noisy delegate estimates coming out of the precinct stage of the caucus/convention process.

Iowa, then, is easy and provided a virtually even distribution of delegates among the top contenders. The delegate rules in the contests ahead — particularly on the Republican side (though the Democrats still have superdelegates) — are more complex.

It is these contests that should create some distance between the candidates in delegate count.

Josh Putnam is a lecturer in political science at the University of Georgia. He runs the site Frontloading HQ.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/02/02/what-the-iowa-caucus-means-for-the-only-count-that-counts-delegates/

My point is that the delegates chosen by coin toss are not the 44 pledged delegates that will choose our eventual nominee.

The coin tosses are for a much larger pool of approximately 11,000 precinct delegates.

Google is simply wrong, if the article that I posted about how the delegates are awarded is correct.

But again, the exact number of pledged delegates is not my point.

If we really want to debate who "won", I'll bet that Sanders won the popular vote by a larger margin than Clinton won SVEs.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/02/bernie-sanders-requests-vote-count-tight-finish-iowa-caucus-clinton

I'm trying to address the fact that this coin toss thing doesn't mean what some people seem to think it means.

Or heck -- maybe it doesn't mean what I think it means. Over the course of this discussion I have already learned more than I did when I wrote the OP above.

This is complicated stuff, and I would be grateful to anyone who provides useful information to help us all understand. I like it when I can become better informed.

I had to really hunt down that write up that does a half way job of explaining how the delegates are allocated. As for the coin flips, it is my understanding that each coin flip was worth a varying real number of SDEs dependent on the turnout, in that precinct, in the previous caucus. Clinton officially won the SDE count by a fraction less than 4 SDEs.

they could do pistols at 20 paces or trial by combat , that component of the selection process is just a little pythonesque don't ya think ?

Greco-Roman wrestling, of course, not WWE-style. Otherwise, we might wind up with professional wrestlers being elected to high offices. Oh, wait...

Minnesota Caucus, 1992

When we were not viable.. I had my caucus group follow their hearts after we had a 15 minute time to talk with the different groups.. 2 went Hillary.. 2 went Bernie and the rest had to think about who they wanted to support a little more and left caucus..

That is dependent on the turnout in the previous caucus, correct?

And the final delegate count towards the nomination should be 22-22, correct? Since neither candidate got 50% of the vote and both were within 0.3% of one another.

Naturally the wingers are eating it up.

was very close. And that's what determines the allocation of state delegates. Although we haven't been told the exact number difference between how many precinct delegates each got, we can figure it out pretty closely. The number each got is converted directly into delegate equivalents and they differed by only 3.77. That means that if 3 or 4 delegates were miscounted things would have worked out differently.

From NPR:

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/465268206/coin-toss-fact-check-no-coin-flips-did-not-win-iowa-for-hillary-clinton

H/T: JaneyVee