
DNC was ‘intimately involved’ in development of troubled Iowa caucus app - AndrewBissell
https://news.yahoo.com/shadow-inc-idp-contract-dnc-documents-224407455.html
======
ebg13
As if people needed more reasons to believe that the DNC is going to
manipulate the primary again[0].

[0] - [https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/08/reminder-dnc-
lawyers...](https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/08/reminder-dnc-lawyers-to-
court-we-do-not-owe-voters-an-impartial-or-evenhanded-primary-election.html)

~~~
redis_mlc
It would be helpful if you can tl;dr that article. It's very inside baseball.

~~~
lern_too_spel
It's inside baseball for the tinfoil hat crowd. The article is a conspiracy
theorist's ravings about a hypothetical argument provided by the DNC's lawyers
recorded in transcripts from
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/08/25/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/08/25/florida-
judge-dismisses-fraud-lawsuit-against-dnc/). The claims of actual rigging have
no evidence backing them whatsoever, so they cling to these hypothetical
arguments as if what they describe actually happened.

~~~
AndrewBissell
Just throwing the term "conspiracy theorist" around doesn't lend your comment
any weight or value. The article is mostly a summary of a DNC lawyer's _own
arguments_ that the DNC is not obligated to conduct a fair or transparent
primary election to select the Democratic nominee. It's _their_ perspective,
not a "conspiracy theory."

~~~
lern_too_spel
I didn't just throw the term conspiracy theory around. Pretending that the
DNC's lawyers explaining the fact that the DNC can just choose its candidate
in backroom dealings is equivalent to admitting that the DNC actually did
choose its candidate in that manner and then manipulated election counts as
the article and its commenters claim _is_ full-blown conspiracy theory.

Likewise, insinuating that the DNC rigged the Iowa caucus in some way merely
because it drew up the contract for the voting app is also conspiracy theory.
You can simply look at the contract and verify that they did not ask for
rigging or the ability to change the app, only the ability to test the app and
access its logs.

~~~
AndrewBissell
> You can simply look at the contract and verify that they did not ask for
> rigging or the ability to change the app

Hahaha. Anyway, most of the reaction I've seen to this is less of the
"conspiracy theory" variety, and more, "wow Tom Perez and the DNC leadership
are totally incompetent and need to be fired yesterday." Whether we reach that
point through the "conspiracy theory" door or the "incompetence" door, it's
obvious they need to go.

~~~
lern_too_spel
> Hahaha.

What part did you find funny? I wasn't joking. The article includes the
contract.

> Anyway, most of the reaction I've seen to this is less of the "conspiracy
> theory" variety

That is most of the reaction I have seen in this very thread.

------
sriram_malhar
I don't see the problem at all here. Can someone tell me what the outrage is
all about.

Suppose DNC didn't draw up such a contract. The company developed a product
under tight wraps, its internals unknown to anyone else. All the n-1
candidates who didn't win would scream about transparency and vote rigging.
The voting history of everyone on that dev team would likely be dredged up by
someone or the other.

The DNC did the right thing. It is not to say that they don't find devious
ways of promoting an inside candidate, but I think that in this case they had
no other choice.

~~~
AndrewBissell
The problem is, the fact that they had oversight and input into the production
of such an absolute disaster of an app (meant for such a crucial vote as the
Iowa caucus) means the people responsible should be summarily fired and
replaced.

~~~
sriram_malhar
I agree. But incompetence and shadowy machinations are two different things.
The DNC may well have both, but this episode doesn't prove the latter.

------
tapatio
What a clown show. This is going to be 2016 all over again.

