I’m sure this is true in many fields, but in software engineering, you’ll often see an engineer or team become very attached to an inferior implementation of some feature. As the problems with this implementation pile up, their attempts to solve them become increasingly bizarre in their desperation to keep their darling. You can only hope that somebody eventually notices during code review.
What made me think of this? Fearing Hackers, D.N.C. Plans to Block Iowa’s ‘Virtual’ Caucuses (NYT):
WASHINGTON — The Democratic National Committee is preparing to block Iowa Democrats’ plans to allow some caucusgoers to vote by phone next year, bowing to security concerns about the process being hacked, according to four people with knowledge of the decision.
[…] The Iowa Democrats’ plan would have allowed voters not attending a traditional caucus to register their preference during one of six “virtual caucuses” over the phone. But D.N.C. security officials told the rules committee at a closed-door session in San Francisco last week that they had “no confidence” such a system could remain safe from hostile hackers. […] In August 2018, D.N.C. members adopted new rules for the 2020 presidential primary that encouraged states that held caucuses to switch to primaries and required caucus states to allow for a form of participation that did not require attending a caucus event.
Even when they made my preferred candidate’s victory possible (Obama 2008), caucuses rubbed me the wrong way. They’re unrepresentative nonsense, a throwback to an extremely bygone era. There is a tried-and-true method of making it easy for people to vote that’s fairly difficult to hack–it’s called a primary–but these yahoos are so in love with their inferior implementation of democracy that they’re coming up with increasingly desperate “solutions” to keep it in place.
Sure, you could do it correctly, but it just feels better to do it your special way. This is how systems fail.
Open thread!
Baud
I find this is true with political zealots. Lots of problems look easily solvable when the solution is 90% complete, but oftentimes the last 10% is an insurmountable hurdle. But who wants to start from scratch once you’ve gotten 90% of the way towards your ideal?! As a result, you get people who are dug in and intransigent.
RepubAnon
Agreed – caucuses re a silly way to select candidates, which exclude from involvement anyone that can’t take the time off. This discourages certain types from participating in the caucuses – and perhaps also in the general elections. This may be intentional.
Baud
@RepubAnon:
Caucuses are especially insidious in states that also hold primaries. Looking specifically at Washington.
Fair Economist
I do see the concerns with a virtual caucus. If the rules are written properly Iowa shouldn’t be able to send delegates if they can’t come up with an alternative.
That would be such a tragedy. /s
Major Major Major Major
@Baud: Writing, as well. Some things can’t be fixed, only cut.
satby
Truer words… And very well put.
A Ghost To Most
There’s also the human desire to not reinvent the wheel (i.e. laziness) that leads to reuse in non- optimal situations.
Matt McIrvin
I still resent caucuses for keeping me from participating in the primary process at all in 1992 (the Virginia Democrats for some reason chose to use one that year, and I was out of state). I suppose something like this could have allowed me to participate but it still seems silly.
Fair Economist
@Baud: It’s true in all fields. Scientists clinging to discredited theories, relatives bringing the same unwanted dish to family occasions, you name it.
Repatriated
How was this supposed to be verifiable, anyhow? At least in postal balloting there’s a physical address for each voter. These days, you don’t even need an actual phone to have a phone number!
More to the point, you don’t even need the phone assigned to that phone number to use the number.
Roger Moore
Their big problem is the simultaneous desire to be first in the nation and New Hampshire’s demand to have the first presidential primary. The only way Iowa can come first is if they have caucuses instead of a primary. Honestly, it’s stupid to give in to their demands to be perpetually first, but as long as we accept that basic constraint, it’s hard for Iowa to do anything differently.
Itinerantpedant
The reason isn’t love of their silly system. It’s preservation of their status as “first”. If they hold a “primary” they trigger a NH commitment to move THEIR primary to (IIRC) two weeks prior.
Then Iowa tries to regain “first” status and before you know it, we’re staring Primary’s about…now. (Practically speaking both parties would bang heads together and refuse to seat delegates at SOME point but not before idiocy had ensued.)
ETA: Roger beat me to it by seconds. Or a better cell signal.
catclub
@Itinerantpedant:
He is probably in New Hampshire.
Major Major Major Major
@Roger Moore:
But the constraint is stupid and bad!
@Itinerantpedant: Every caucus state is having to come up with a dumb workaround because of their desire to have a caucus, though.
Itinerantpedant
@catclub: So you’re saying by law he has to be first.
Sigh. WhatEVER.
Itinerantpedant
@Major Major Major Major: Fair point regarding the rest. Iowa is kind of a special case.
Marcopolo
@Baud: Washington State is using a primary in 2020. I don’t know if that means they are forever abandoning caucuses and the articles I’ve perused haven’t said if it is just for the Presidential race or all races but the state democratic party learned a lesson from 2016 when Wilmer won the caucuses handily but Clinton won the primary.
Baud
@Marcopolo:
Oh, good for them. Thanks.
Butthurt Jordan Trombone (fka XTPD)
Back from my home planet to say, Congrats on the front page promotion
PVDMichael
I’m not trying to defend caucuses, but they are significantly cheaper to put on…
BC in Illinois
@Baud:
@Major Major Major Major:
“Writing, as well.”
I knew a professional book editor who went by the rule:
“This passage is a problem.”
“Can you take it out?”
“Yeah, I think so.”
“Well . . .”
Villago Delenda Est
@Roger Moore: Iowa and New Hampshire should both go DIAF. New Hampshire actually has a state law that insists it must be the first primary in the nation.
Then there’s the pathetic little hamlet of Dixville Notch that insists on voting right after midnight Monday to be the first community to turn in their votes for Prez.
opiejeanne
@Baud: Washington dumped the caucus system after 2016. It was so wildly wrong when compared to the (doesn’t count at all) primary that the Democratic PTB reluctantly gave up on caucuses, finally bowing to the outcry of everyone else in the state. MikeJ talked about their resistance.
Villago Delenda Est
@Marcopolo: This is definitely one of the problems with caucuses; they’re used by assholes like Wilmer and Ron Paul to attempt to game the system and create the impression that the candidates actually matter.
Villago Delenda Est
@catclub: ISWYDT
Marcopolo
@Roger Moore: Honestly, the whole apparatus we use for determining presidential candidates could use a good overhaul. If we agree that actual elections/caucuses start up in January of the election year & the nominating conventions are in August (so the last contests take place in July), I think it would make sense to just say if a given state’s population is X (say the 10 least populated) they should hold their contests first, then the next 10, then the next 10, then the next 10, and finally at the end of the period in July the most populous 10. That would allow candidates to do their retail politics early on, give a chance to candidates with less name recognition/money to have a break out moment & develop momentum, and hopefully keep anyone from wrapping up the nomination by the end of March.
The way the calendar is happening this year so many states have moved forward (so they can “have a real impact” that the majority of the delegates will be elected by the end of March.
Theoretically a spread out primary map/calendar like this would also make it even more stupid to camp out in Iowa for 2 years ala John Delaney.
Anyway, just spitballing here but since states/state parties have so much at stake a reasonable primary system will probably never happen.
Major Major Major Major
@Marcopolo: why not just randomize it?
A Ghost To Most
@Repatriated:
I blame Signalling System 7, the woefully obsolete protocol that allows all the variants of spoofing we now see. This should have been fixed long ago.
opiejeanne
@Fair Economist:
That made me laugh. Just when I thought I’d escaped the “horrors” of hated foods of my childhood, my adult kids decide that we really need to have that damned green bean casserole at Thanksgiving because they remember it from Grandma’s house.
We are strange creatures.
In 20 years there may be a similar nostalgic return to the caucus system, but God I hope not. I’m so old I remember the “smoke-filled rooms” when a very small group of people decided who the presidential candidates would be.
Kelly
Primaries by time zone, rotating first each presidential election. I see little value in retail politics at the presidential level.
NJeff
I feel like this a response to David’s post below on the American healthcare system.
RSA
I’m reminded of Tony Hoare (Turing Award, 1980):
catclub
@A Ghost To Most: It can probably be solved with blockchain ;)
catclub
@RSA:
note the date.
also, are you Rivest, Shamir, AND Adelman?
Major Major Major Major
@NJeff: healthcare delivery is not a trivial problem!
Marcopolo
@Major Major Major Major: Campaigning in high population states is really expensive. There is so much ground to cover that it basically comes down to running ads as opposed to retail campaigning. Just think about all the media markets in California or Texas. I’d really prefer a nominating process that did allow candidates to start with meet & greets in smaller states, where if you don’t have huge resources you can still make an impression based on your policies, your personality, and your ability to put together a good campaign/campaign team.
It’s similar to why the idea, which I occasionally see pitched, of having all the primaries/caucuses on the same day is so bad. Although I think activity starts way too early now, I do think it is a good thing to be able to see how candidate’s perform over time.
I know there are a lot of complaints about how many folks are running right now on the D side but the winnowing process has started, the folks who did not make the Sept. debate are at a serious disadvantage (except maybe Steyer who can limitlessly self-fund), and once the votes are counted in IA we will be down to no more than 3 (maybe 4) serious contenders. Possibly the same top 3/4 that we have right now, definitely folks who are in the top 5 or 6 right now.
justawriter
My contrarian view is that we forget the parties are mostly private entities and we shouldn’t be subsidizing their candidate selection process at all, especially by having states spend money helping them decide which candidates get put on the ballot. No more automatic slots for major parties, they all have to meet the same requirement at the Raving Loony Party for ballot access. Finally, if you are a member of the opposing party, you shouldn’t have a say in the choice of who represents my party in an open primary. Finally, “Mr. I’m not a member of any party” shouldn’t have a say in candidate selection at all.
Marcopolo
Disclaimer: I know there are a hell of a lot of just regular people (some of whom comment on this blog) doing important stuff everyday who never have anything written/said about them. They are heroes. Folks like Ady Barkan, except you might of heard of him now and you haven’t heard about them. I realize the vast majority of progress we make towards a more perfect union is a result of their/our unheralded efforts & perseverance in the face of opposition.
With that said, I thought this profile of Piper Perabo in Slate was an interesting read:
Piper Perabo: Resistance Celebrity
Celebrity activism is something I can take or leave: the good is that they are celebrities and can bring attention to things that might otherwise go missing; the bad is they are celebrities and often have an outsized (and often wrong) view of their general importance combined with an only superficial understanding of what they have weighed in on. But if the article is accurate, the path that Perabo has taken in becoming an activist seems admirable. And I will give her a salute for getting arrested at B. Kavanaugh’s senate hearing. Her philosophy seems to be summed up in this quote:
And I am off to do life. Everyone have a lovely day.
A Ghost To Most
Everyday heroes
Chyron HR
Considering that Bernie’s success in the caucuses was due entirely to his supporter’s strategy of cowing other caucus-goers with threats of violence, I would think this change only helps his chances.
FlyingToaster
In my professional life I’ve always called this the “epicycle problem”. For generations astronomers tried to map the planets positions onto perfect circles, and then had each planet orbiting in a circle on its point on the perfect circle, and then a circle on that… until Kepler proved that the only mathematical solution to Mars’ orbit was an ellipse with the Sun at one focus. And proceeded to calculate the ellipses for the other known planets.
In the Talmud there’s a line: “You see what you expect to see.” Start expecting something else, or get the same old same old.
New Hampshire always has the first primary, until the party tells them to get in line or lose alla their delegates. Iowa has the first caucus, until they finally wise the heck up and dump caucuses for primaries.
It can’t happen overnight, but it’s going to come.
Villago Delenda Est
@A Ghost To Most: When I worked at a itsy bitsy CLEC, we had problems connecting with the ILEC’s switches. The solution, it seems, was to turn off some of the security systems because the ILEC didn’t use them.
Leto
@Baud: You served in the military, didn’t you? ?
Major Major Major Major
@Marcopolo: fair point about media markets, but speaking as a former Californian and now New Yorker, it’s just an awful feeling to live in some of the most populous states yet never have a meaningful primary contest.
FlyingToaster
@Marcopolo:
Steyer who?
Seriously, nobody in the Democratic corp of door knockers knows who this guy is. He’ll never make a debate stage because he’ll never get his poll numbers above “how many tech-bros identify as Democrats to Zogby?”.
zhena gogolia
OT, but I regret every penny I ever spent at the box office for a Susan Sarandon movie.
A Ghost To Most
@Villago Delenda Est: Yea, that’s part of the problem; old protocols were often more like guidelines than actual rules.
Major Major Major Major
@justawriter:
How long before Election Day should you stop being eligible to switch party registration?
dm
At least someone remembers that.
They did that by making organization and individual voters more important than pundits. That’s a thing in caucuses’ favor, that we may want to find a way to keep.
Major Major Major Major
@dm:
Sure, but “instead of measuring votes, let’s measure enthusiasm and free time” is probably not the best way to do that.
immanentize
@A Ghost To Most:
Well, no she doesn’t. In fact, the opposite. She has failed to deseve a place. Unless there is some secret “deserves” category no one knows about….
A Ghost To Most
@immanentize:
This can’t be to me. I was discussing network protocols.
Eta I see you were referring to Zhena and Sarandon. I concur.
justawriter
@Major Major Major Major: Government shouldn’t be keeping track of party membership for the parties. As private organizations, the parties should maintain their own membership lists and requirements to participate in candidate selection. If the party wants to require a two dollar membership or just following their Facebook page or attending a party function to participate in selecting its candidates, the government should have nothing to do with it. The government can set reasonable ballot access terms for candidates (and the party organization would be the major tool for earning that access, like collecting petition signatures) and conduct the general elections, but that’s it.
immanentize
@A Ghost To Most: Ha! Maybe it is about network protocols….
(actually, that was to @zhena gogolia: above your comment).
Major Major Major Major
@justawriter: why would the government get to set terms for ballot access if they aren’t dictating anything else?
The Lodger
@zhena gogolia: “I will bring a soldier’s heart to the White House… and keep it in a cooler under my desk?” That Tulsi Gabbard?
A Ghost To Most
@immanentize:
Yes, the frailties of SS7 are an analog to the internet; too open at the beginning to prevent the abuses that are now occurring. As for primaries, caucuses allow the zealots to take over, and open primaries lead to ratfvcking. Jungle primaries? No clue.
Tata
@zhena gogolia: I can’t regret every dollar I spent watching Rocky Horror. How about we settle for calling that movie Tim Curry’s?
kindness
With all due respect to the DNC there should be no caucus’ for the party. There should only be paper ballots that can be tracked and double checked in elections. Caucus’ are not representative and are dumb. Let Republicans (& Bernie) be dumb.
justawriter
@Major Major Major Major: General elections are state responsibilities, party choices are not. States give preferential treatment to two parties – again, private organizations – and not candidates for the right to be listed on a general election ballot. For a viable candidate who isn’t a member of a major party, the process of getting on all ballots in onerous. I don’t think larger parties should get special preference to the ballot. I also believe states can require minimal requirements to earn a spot on the ballot, such as is used for initiative and referendum sponsors collecting a percentage of signatures based on the number of votes cast in the last election. I just want the Republicans and Democrats to meet the same requirements every two years.
Mike J
@opiejeanne: Sorry to arrive late to the thread.
WA Dems had a vote/comment period on dumping the caucus and going with the results of the primary that is still held every election. The results were overwhelming (93%) in favor of dumping the caucus. Delegates are still going to be chosen by caucus, but with the primary results in, these *should* be more sane than the shitshows and near fistfights from the caucuses.
Normal people do not care about who the delegates are going to be. I suspect most people would be happy if the party just delegates will come from the elected officials who are party members (I don’t know any individual on earth who would do a better job than my state lege rep.) Instead it’s going to be people who have lots of free time and nothing better to do who will argue for days over who is pure enough to spend a week in Wisconsin.
Another Scott
@Marcopolo: I like that a lot, but haven’t thought about it deeply. Much, much better than the “regional primaries” idea that many have floated over the years (what region goes first??).
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
dm
@Major Major Major Major: Enthusiasm and free time are practically pre-requisites for organizing, and organizing is probably the best alternative to the conventional wisdom of pundits being the thing to get people to the polls (or, in the pundits’ case, convincing a lot of people voting is not worth the trouble).
Maybe ActBlue can let pundit-ignored candidates get enough resources to make big-state primaries not be media-saturated foregone conclusions, I don’t know.
Omnes Omnibus
One of the reasons we keep inefficient kludges in place is because they work and we don’t know that a new, more efficient solution will. Take Roe v. Wade, for example. It is not a well- written Opinion. The legal reasoning in it is not top quality. All in all, it is sort of a piece of crap. Except for one thing – it has secured a woman’s right to chose for the past 45 years or so. Trying to “fix” the problems in the Opinion is too likely to have terrible results in our very divided society, so we leave it in place and, from our side, try to patch it up where needed.
Wapiti
@dm:
I think that’s the reason that the DNC requires some # of discrete individual donors, and now, some # of donors from (20?) different states. It is a measurable demonstration of the candidate’s organization and broad appeal to individual voters.
Major Major Major Major
@Omnes Omnibus:
Sure, but “an election” is not exactly a new solution for determining voter preference.
MisterForkbeard
@zhena gogolia: Ugh. Sarandon just keeps getting more terrible.
Gabbard deserves to be on that stage if she can reach the minimal requirements that literally everyone else has to meet. She’s not getting special treatment because Susan Sarandon and a bunch of dead-end Berners like that she yells about how awful Democrats are.
I try not to punish actors and writers for this sort of thing, but over the past 3-4 years I’ve started a sort of ‘soft blacklist’ for these folks. And GamerGaters. And Sad/Angry Puppies.
Omnes Omnibus
@Major Major Major Major: I apologize for straying from the exact topic of the OP into a more general comment on the issue.
Major Major Major Major
@Omnes Omnibus: I don’t believe you ?
TenguPhule
@Omnes Omnibus:
Until five Republicans decide “Fuck it, hold my beer.”
Shana
Every morning I go to Go Comics and read “today’s” Calvin and Hobbes. Obviously it’s not today’s since the strip ended years ago, but they run through the archive and post the next day’s strip from when it originally ran. This week’s story arc is Calvin trying to invent a robot that will make his bed for him, instead of just, you know, making his bed. For some reason I thought of it reading this post.
Omnes Omnibus
@Major Major Major Major: That’s probably for the best.
But as long as I am straying from approved topics, this from Gogol Bordello (not my favorite band despite s the love they got from Atrios back in the day) is a pretty timely song.
https://youtu.be/aKpgb2WrGo0
A Ghost To Most
@TenguPhule:
That would look nice on the GOP’s headstone.
Chris T.
@Itinerantpedant: Obviously, Iowa should switch to a regular primary … and then hold the 2080 primary election today!
Major Major Major Major
@Omnes Omnibus: Oh I loved them back in college, thanks!
Off-topic, even though it’s forbidden in this open thread: I suspect your twitter bio is outdated
Omnes Omnibus
@Major Major Major Major: I still like the line.
RSA
@catclub:
Hah! Just my initials, though friends have asked whether it was a clever allusion to privacy, and I have to say I’m not clever.
joel hanes
@A Ghost To Most:
By Tom Boggioni
I miss the days when we’d see his bassets on his blog.
Doug R
@Baud: Yup. Washington proved how undemocratic caucuses can be, especially early in the “season”.
LongHairedWeirdo
Proposal: game out, test, focus group stacked preference primary for caucuses.
It just struck me out of the blue that stack ranking (“1st choice: warren, 2nd choice…”) with instant runoff meets many of the goals of caucusing. It also makes the voting method more widespread, and thus, more acceptable.
Major Major Major Major
@LongHairedWeirdo: I like acceptability voting. In my Bay Area experience, the campaigns themselves couldn’t even explain how instant-runoff votes were counted, which can create big perception problems. But, you know, Arrow’s Theorem and all, we could argue about this all day…
ETA just saw you said ‘for caucuses’. I’m against any sort of voting scheme that happens at caucuses, especially one that’s even harder to explain than current caucuses. No sense piling another byzantine ‘solution’ onto them.
J R in WV
@Major Major Major Major:
I think in NY state it’s many months before the next election to change your party ID… IIRC. I could be wrong, again. After all I was wrong once before…
J R in WV
@J R in WV:
538 has an article that says 193 days before the primary..? wow~!