SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Officials from the 68th caucus precinct overlook the results of the first referendum count during a caucus event on February 3, 2020 at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. (Photo: Tom Brenner/Getty Images)
Reporting on New Nevada Caucus App, or iPad 'Tool,' Not Filling Observers With Confidence
"The 2020 election cycle could not only mark the end of the Iowa caucuses, but all caucuses nationwide."
Feb 12, 2020
As Nevadans pepare to begin early voting from February 15-18 in the state's 2020 Democratic presidential primary caucuses, reporting about an app set to be used in the contest is raising serious questions around the process and whether the Democratic Party learned anything from the debacle that was the Iowa caucuses earlier this month.
"Apparently the solution to count votes in caucuses is to...continue to use untested software and roll it out just before a major election," tweeted Washington Post reporter Hamza Shaban.
After the Iowa caucuses descended into chaos due in no small part to the use of an app designed by Democratic consulting firm Acronym's Shadow, Inc. subsidiary, Nevada Democratic Party officials promised they would not use the same technology--instead shifting their focus to building out a useable replacement in a matter of weeks.
\u201cHere's @brittanyagibson on the slow-motion wood chipper that Nevada appears to be feeding its caucus into with its "tool" (not an app!) https://t.co/asrKJypUw0\u201d— David Dayen (@David Dayen) 1581532757
American Prospect reporter Brittany Gibson found Wednesday that many of the errors which surrounded deployment of the Iowa app are being repeated in Nevada.
On February 8, the presidential campaigns were told that the Nevada caucus sites would now use a "tool," which would be pre-loaded onto iPads at the causes sites, and not connected to the internet, to record results. Unlike the original app, which was commissioned for $60,000, the tool would supposedly work more like a calculator. But aside from the lack of internet connectivity, the party did not explain the difference between the failed app and the new tool. It also did not disclose who made it.
Voting rights group Verified Voting president Marian Schneider told Gibson she was wary of the app and how it was being designed and deployed.
"Technology needs proper planning, proper testing, and proper training," said Scheider. "Those are the key ingredients."
As Recode reported, it's unclear how much training party officials have on the new tool:
The Nevada State Democratic Party told Recode that it has over 3,000 volunteers and 300 site leads who are "actively receiving robust training." The statement not did provide any details beyond this, nor did it address the non-app tool. Nevada might have learned a few lessons from Iowa regarding which app vendors to trust, but it doesn't appear to have learned that transparency is an essential part of the democratic process.
The party did reveal that paper would be used as a back-up to the tool to ensure the veracity of results.
Nevada Independent reporter Megan Messerly shared a photo of the paper ballot on Twitter Wednesday.
\u201cFor those curious what the scannable paper early vote ballot for Nevada\u2019s caucus is going to look like, this is what folks are being shown during volunteer training webinars.\u201d— Megan Messerly (@Megan Messerly) 1581569873
On February 8, Messerly was told by a caucus volunteer that the ongoing drama was damaging the process.
"For me, I volunteered to do this because I'm a loyal Democrat, and there's nothing more I want to do than defeat Donald Trump," said volunteer site leader Seth Morrison. "But if we allow this to go down and it's another Iowa, what does this do for my party?"
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
As Nevadans pepare to begin early voting from February 15-18 in the state's 2020 Democratic presidential primary caucuses, reporting about an app set to be used in the contest is raising serious questions around the process and whether the Democratic Party learned anything from the debacle that was the Iowa caucuses earlier this month.
"Apparently the solution to count votes in caucuses is to...continue to use untested software and roll it out just before a major election," tweeted Washington Post reporter Hamza Shaban.
After the Iowa caucuses descended into chaos due in no small part to the use of an app designed by Democratic consulting firm Acronym's Shadow, Inc. subsidiary, Nevada Democratic Party officials promised they would not use the same technology--instead shifting their focus to building out a useable replacement in a matter of weeks.
\u201cHere's @brittanyagibson on the slow-motion wood chipper that Nevada appears to be feeding its caucus into with its "tool" (not an app!) https://t.co/asrKJypUw0\u201d— David Dayen (@David Dayen) 1581532757
American Prospect reporter Brittany Gibson found Wednesday that many of the errors which surrounded deployment of the Iowa app are being repeated in Nevada.
On February 8, the presidential campaigns were told that the Nevada caucus sites would now use a "tool," which would be pre-loaded onto iPads at the causes sites, and not connected to the internet, to record results. Unlike the original app, which was commissioned for $60,000, the tool would supposedly work more like a calculator. But aside from the lack of internet connectivity, the party did not explain the difference between the failed app and the new tool. It also did not disclose who made it.
Voting rights group Verified Voting president Marian Schneider told Gibson she was wary of the app and how it was being designed and deployed.
"Technology needs proper planning, proper testing, and proper training," said Scheider. "Those are the key ingredients."
As Recode reported, it's unclear how much training party officials have on the new tool:
The Nevada State Democratic Party told Recode that it has over 3,000 volunteers and 300 site leads who are "actively receiving robust training." The statement not did provide any details beyond this, nor did it address the non-app tool. Nevada might have learned a few lessons from Iowa regarding which app vendors to trust, but it doesn't appear to have learned that transparency is an essential part of the democratic process.
The party did reveal that paper would be used as a back-up to the tool to ensure the veracity of results.
Nevada Independent reporter Megan Messerly shared a photo of the paper ballot on Twitter Wednesday.
\u201cFor those curious what the scannable paper early vote ballot for Nevada\u2019s caucus is going to look like, this is what folks are being shown during volunteer training webinars.\u201d— Megan Messerly (@Megan Messerly) 1581569873
On February 8, Messerly was told by a caucus volunteer that the ongoing drama was damaging the process.
"For me, I volunteered to do this because I'm a loyal Democrat, and there's nothing more I want to do than defeat Donald Trump," said volunteer site leader Seth Morrison. "But if we allow this to go down and it's another Iowa, what does this do for my party?"
As Nevadans pepare to begin early voting from February 15-18 in the state's 2020 Democratic presidential primary caucuses, reporting about an app set to be used in the contest is raising serious questions around the process and whether the Democratic Party learned anything from the debacle that was the Iowa caucuses earlier this month.
"Apparently the solution to count votes in caucuses is to...continue to use untested software and roll it out just before a major election," tweeted Washington Post reporter Hamza Shaban.
After the Iowa caucuses descended into chaos due in no small part to the use of an app designed by Democratic consulting firm Acronym's Shadow, Inc. subsidiary, Nevada Democratic Party officials promised they would not use the same technology--instead shifting their focus to building out a useable replacement in a matter of weeks.
\u201cHere's @brittanyagibson on the slow-motion wood chipper that Nevada appears to be feeding its caucus into with its "tool" (not an app!) https://t.co/asrKJypUw0\u201d— David Dayen (@David Dayen) 1581532757
American Prospect reporter Brittany Gibson found Wednesday that many of the errors which surrounded deployment of the Iowa app are being repeated in Nevada.
On February 8, the presidential campaigns were told that the Nevada caucus sites would now use a "tool," which would be pre-loaded onto iPads at the causes sites, and not connected to the internet, to record results. Unlike the original app, which was commissioned for $60,000, the tool would supposedly work more like a calculator. But aside from the lack of internet connectivity, the party did not explain the difference between the failed app and the new tool. It also did not disclose who made it.
Voting rights group Verified Voting president Marian Schneider told Gibson she was wary of the app and how it was being designed and deployed.
"Technology needs proper planning, proper testing, and proper training," said Scheider. "Those are the key ingredients."
As Recode reported, it's unclear how much training party officials have on the new tool:
The Nevada State Democratic Party told Recode that it has over 3,000 volunteers and 300 site leads who are "actively receiving robust training." The statement not did provide any details beyond this, nor did it address the non-app tool. Nevada might have learned a few lessons from Iowa regarding which app vendors to trust, but it doesn't appear to have learned that transparency is an essential part of the democratic process.
The party did reveal that paper would be used as a back-up to the tool to ensure the veracity of results.
Nevada Independent reporter Megan Messerly shared a photo of the paper ballot on Twitter Wednesday.
\u201cFor those curious what the scannable paper early vote ballot for Nevada\u2019s caucus is going to look like, this is what folks are being shown during volunteer training webinars.\u201d— Megan Messerly (@Megan Messerly) 1581569873
On February 8, Messerly was told by a caucus volunteer that the ongoing drama was damaging the process.
"For me, I volunteered to do this because I'm a loyal Democrat, and there's nothing more I want to do than defeat Donald Trump," said volunteer site leader Seth Morrison. "But if we allow this to go down and it's another Iowa, what does this do for my party?"
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.