The Iowa state GOP says their certified results show Rick Santorum winning by a 34-vote margin over Mitt Romney, a reversal of Romney’s reported caucus night lead of 8 votes — but the party has nevertheless called the result a “split decision,” citing the matter of 8 missing precincts. But those precincts aren’t really missing.
“I can’t speculate without documentation from the missing eight,” Iowa GOP chairman Matt Strawn told the Des Moines Register. “The comments I made at 1:30 a.m. Jan. 4 congratulating both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum still apply. I don’t think the certified vote totals take anything away from either Governor Romney or Senator Santorum.”
But the results that were reported on caucus night by the state GOP are still online, and the party provided TPM the link on request. And for those precincts, we can get an idea of how Santorum and Romney performed against each other. Of course, we should remain aware that there still could be a typo in these numbers — but on the other hand, the probabilities strongly favor them being accurate for both Santorum and Romney, as errors that do occur (if at all) could have been spread across the other candidates, as well.
And as it turns out, when incorporating the numbers from election night, Santorum’s lead actually becomes even wider.
Precinct officials phone or e-mail in their results on the night of the caucus. However, as was noted when the first error in Santorum’s favor was discovered, the process invariably involves some human error. Whether it’s accidentally double-tapping the “2” on a keyboard, as in the case of that one mistake, or flipping digits around, there can be any number of typos made on a late night. Thus, the party’s certification of the results.
The official certified results are supposed to be submitted on the original document that the local precinct officials wrote the totals, which is called a “Form E.”
But in the case of these eight missing precincts, the original “Form E” was lost. As such, no votes at all have been included for those precincts in the certified totals.
The precincts were:
• Cerro Gordo County: Mason City W2 P3
• Emmet County: Estherville, W2
• Franklin County: Geneva/Reeve
• Lee County: Fort Madison 4A, Fort Madison 4B, Franklin Cedar Marion, and Washington Green Bay Denmark
• Pocahontas County: Center-S Roosevelt-N Lincoln (Note, that is the designated name of a single precinct.)
In those precincts, based on the reported caucus night results, Santorum received a total of 81 votes, to Romney’s 46.
If those results are added to the certified results, Santorum’s 29,839 votes would become 29,920, and Romney’ 29,805 would become 29,851 — for a “final” result of Santorum winning the caucuses, by a margin of 69 votes.
We’re investigating whether there’s any precedent in past Iowa caucus votes for discounting votes altogether when the certified forms are lost. We’ll update when we know more.
Eric Kleefeld
Eric Kleefeld joined TPM as an intern for the final months of the 2006 midterm elections, and then kept showing up for work. His other interests include guitars, old comic books and the politics of various English-speaking countries.
WELL then - that's another thing entirely.
Are the Iowa republican demostrating for the country what election fraud is all about?
For a group of people so adamant about Voter ID to protect the integrity of elections....they can't even manage one state caucus? Incompetent boobs, just what they showed us during the GWB years.
Tinuviel
Well you know what Grandma always said: If you lie, you cheat and if you cheat you steal - Teapublicans do all three
the "69" is just as made up / approximate as the "34". The race was within statistical error. People want 100.00000% accuracy in voting, and that's just never going to happen.
Santorum demanded new numbers, and Iowa gave him a number that translates for many people as "blow me."
DQKennard There isn't "statistical error". People count objects exactly on this sort of scale all the time. There are occasionally ambiguities like the "hanging chads" but this shouldn't exist in the case of the caucuses. There can only be reporting and tabulation errors.
Well, mutual mange session. DQKennard
69 and pulling a head.
Bring on the 69'er TV ads!
please pardon me if someone else has expressed this before, however :
Is this man one life long off color joke? I mean "69"! really?!
MorriganNoregon That ground's been plowed, so to speak, but don't worry- it's still funny.
Carlos Fiance funny as in odd or curious, not so funny as in 'ha-ha'
MorriganNoregon Yes.
By far the most interesting part of this story for me is the way the GOP keeps bungling elections until they get the results that they want while screaming about how the Dems are always fixing elections. Voter fraud is a problem so we have to institute voter disenfranchisement.
But when we run an election (see Wakeshaw county, WI) our operatives take votes home with them on personal computers and end up with different numbers a week or so later. Our republican only caucuses in which no democrats take any active participation (and we are so into the voter enfranchisement that we reserve the right to kick people out and deny them a vote at all) are so well run that even now, several weeks later we still cannot agree on the results. CNN had to wake up some of our operatives to tell them that the numbers were off on election night.
Yes, you must turn to the republicans if you want predictable elections with results you can honestly trust*.
*"honestly trust" is a trade marked phrase which has no basis in the actual deffinitions of either word seperately or together. The deffinition in this case is that you'll have no idea at all what the true results were but we'll tell you what results we wanted to have come out of it after a few weeks of adjusting reality to fit our pre-determined outcome.
gmoolan Banana Republicans
Sex references in the headline? I'm familiar with 69 and I've heard about Santorum. But 34 just confuses me. You probably have to practice Yoga for years before even attempting 34.
The Nose
Actually, Ugg often performs 34½. Har har har.
Ugg the RepugThe Nose I had no idea that Neanderthals were that limber.
haha...msnbc is avoiding using the actual number to report on the Santorum Iowa win. Too risque' I suppose. Cowards.
sringr I would hate to think that's really true. News is news; accurate numbers count.
Would Rick accept the victory if the total count was complete? Seems like that number, 69, would make him uncomfortable.
Santorum by 69, and he still gets the shaft.
In today's political news: Santorum ended up on top of Romney by 69. Rick Perry was polling near the bottom and he withdrew.
A Santorum 69 sounds really gross.
Rick Santorum, who won the Iowa contest by 69 votes, demands a recount.
OK, I'll be the first?, to admit to seeing the hilarious part of the story: Santorum (the missionary sex guy) won by 69!
What could Eric say - this headline wrote itself.
It is kind of interesting that all the actual Evangelical Repub nominees are now out of the race. And the Tea Party IMO has seen its day come and go. So...what does this say about their influence? The MSM has been elevating their influence for the last couple election cycles now. So how does this fit their narrative now. I guess R. Paul could be considered the last evangelical but he doesn't really go there with religious fervor like the rest of them.
Redoing my comment...
I think Santorum's got more of the evangelical vote. Paul's a rampantly racist lunatic, but Santorum's a full on right wing christian conservative, who'd probably be out fireboming abortion clinics if he wasn't running for President.
But I think Santorum's lost the man-on-dog vote, if that matters.
JJRothery Maybe, but where I live now, I've learned that a lot of evangelicals deep down inside their religious beliefs and not very approving or enthusiastic about Catholicism in general. Something to do with that whole reformation thing I believe.
sringrJJRothery I agree, in general they are not very approving of Catholicism. If they had a candidate in the race who was just like Santorum, but evangelical (or any kind of Protestant), they would dump Santorum in a heartbeat. But he's the most social-conservative one of the bunch, so they are stuck with him.
The whole thing is kind of meh.
Look, I like a good conspiracy too, but I want me a "good" conspiracy. One unlikable white guy is appointed the "winner" of the Iowa Republican caucus over some other unlikable white guy? What conspiracy will out next -- that FoxNews is, in fact, conservative spin?
I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.
Let's move on, people. This is the Repubs' problem. If they don't want to say nothin' (FoxNews and Human Events have buried the lead in teensy weensy links), let them embrace their unlikable white guy.
tamdai Sure. No conspiracy here. An ever more apparent larger victory just... sorta.. went... away. By itself. With no help.
It's just crazy talk to think unlimited, secret money from a rather well-known, ruthless source might have greased any wheels, here.
YOU move on! I can't believe you don't understand that a scandal in a situation like this will help give Republicans a much-deserved and long-overdue black eye with the public.
And because I can't believe you don't understand this... I would like to know why you would want to help the GOP? My mind is beginning to think in terms of a "conspiracy"...
BChamplain And when the GOP has been running the news cycles with ramped up fear of voter fraud, you can safely bet they are engaged in ballot fraud.
GOP = Greedy Old Projectionists. They ALWAYS point the finger at others, accusing them of doing what they are doing themselves.
tamdai You feel free to move on. The rest of us are going to stay right here and watch the hypocrisy party corkscrew itself into the ground with their own version of vote fraud, while simultaneously screaming about vote fraud.
This isn't a "nothing to see here" scenario. You have a general election in this state in less than 10 months...if this is the preview of what can happen, are you so lackadaisacal about circumvention of a constitutional right that you think it shouldn't have focus placed on it in some fashion?
I tell you if one of those lost votes were mine, I'd be pret-ty bloody pissed off right now.
JJRotherytamdai exactly, it's not like this was the Iowa paid straw poll or the that other poll they have prior to their caucus. It's an actual primary caucus election for the Republican winner of their state. If you take out Iowa, I guess you can just wait to count on the other 49 states to come through for the candidate of your choice. No big deal huh?
sringrJJRotherytamdai I think you will find the GOP (Romney camp) pushback to be something along the lines of: "It was a partisan matter, not a state election, and the outcome did not actually elect anyone to office!"
JJRotherytamdai Well, the general election will be policed by rules that are enshrined in state law and administrated by the state (and by county and local officials). The caucuses are run by party rules and administered by the parties. So you won't necessarily see the same sloppiness in the general election that appears to have been the case with the 2012 caucuses.
slbJJRotherytamdai JJ - the mechanisms of a Caucus vote/tally and primary/booth election are totally different. The preference vote at a Republican Caucus in Iowa is literally a piece of paper - not even a preprinted ballot - and then a hand count (which is supposed to be overseen by a committee of the designated local chairs of the several campaigns, who are then supposed to stick around and witness/hear the results called in by the overall chair of the caucus to state headquarters.
(The Iowa Democrats - who held a caucus this year without a preference component - don't even use a ballot, but rely on a show of hands, which are counted by the caucus chair with help from (and agreement on the results) by the competing captains designated by the several campaigns, and then similarly called in, with witnessing by all interested parties.
For both parties, it actually is remarkably transparent and honest, as long as the local campaign captains/chairs stay engaged thru the results call-in.
Chicanery COULD occur if a campaign representative leaves the caucus prior to the call-in of results. This, does not happen, in my experience, speaking as both a longtime candidate activist and caucus location manager/chair.
The General Election has the pre-printed, scannable ballot with which you are familiar, taken into the privacy of the voting booth. (Iowa Republican vote privately at their caucus. Democrats are out in the open. It's quite interesting.....
tamdai I don't think conspiracy is really the issue here. It's more the spectator sport of the Republicans tearing off and devouring big hunks of each other. By all means, move along. I'm going to sit and watch.
This is good news for McCain.
It's Pat Too funny, Pat. +1
McCain 2012.
So the party of "there's rampant vote fraud everywhere on the Dem's side!!" can't even manage to get a caucus vote done without problems?
Rachel Maddow put it beautifully last night - if you're going to run an election this shady, you don't get to also be the party screaming about vote fraud. Hypocrisy at its finest.
JJRothery I couldn't agree with both you and Rachel more, JJ. Whether this is just a case of sloppy management or non-existent controls, or something more sinister, it's more than a little ironic when it comes from the people who are so concerned about eliminating all possibility of voter fraud (which would appear to be practically non-existent in the first place) that they are willing to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters.
@slb - if they can't even get what is in essence a show of hands style voting figured out, I have zero faith in their ability to get it right in primary states with machines and paper ballots.
I will tell you one thing though, up until the last two weeks I figured nobody was going to topple Mittens. I still think he's a done deal...but the possibility of a bloody battle leading to a brokered convention becomes less of a longshot every day this stuff happens.
JJRotheryslb I'll take one of those! Because I'm goddamned sick and tired of the media, stroking this "aura of inevitability" when it comes to everything involving the Republicans.
In this case, we were all sternly instructed, months ago, by the one-eyed monster in the corner of the living room that Romney was the (you'll pardon the expression) anointed candidate. Even when he was being beaten; even when his numbers weren't moving. Why would that have been?
A brokered convention would show the idiot "independents" just what a gang fight of crazies looks like. They want vanilla and stability? Show them a live broadcast of the christianists, duking it out on the floor with the vulture capitalist contingent, while screaming fat people march by with signs showing aborted fetuses and Obama with a bone in his nose.
I'd pay to see that. You?
JJRotheryslb Well, the state administers the primaries, so there is at least a chance that it will be done better, though as we have seen in Wisconsin, party hacks at the county level (and also at the state level, as with Florida in 2000) can still throw a monkey wrench into things.
slbJJRothery "...as we have seen in Wisconsin, party hacks at the county level (and also at the state level, as with Florida in 2000) can still throw a monkey wrench into things."
Yep, and that is why more people need to get involved, in official capacity, in their local elections. More people need to sign up and work as polling place judges, ballot counters, even run for the offices of County Clerks!
Having worked in a small, rural, very red county as a ballot counter, and being the only DEM there, I got some serious lessons about what goes on, or what gets tried if there aren't some people from other parties present to keep things honest. Yeah, THAT shift foreman won't be overseeing the vote counts ever again.
Emmet County on election night had anomalous results posted on the Internet. Sources had "others" and "none of these" with about half of the votes. "Other" was beating Santorum (who won the county) by a large margin. However, the Estherville Daily news has results that presumably were reported locally. In case you're wondering about the Bachmann total, I think she was the only candidate to visit:
"Rick Santorum received 13 percent of the Republican nod with 65 votes followed by Michele Bachmann with 9 percent, or 47. Also getting 9 percent was Perry with 43 followed by Romney at 8 percent with 42."
http://www.esthervilledailynews.com/page/content.d...
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like