What’s up with the Iowa Caucus results?
On Saturday morning, CNN Politics put out an article with the headline claim “Iowa’s mess is a threat to democracy”. For a fact-checker, this article is a gold mine. There are numerous claims that could be explored, but the most direct and intriguing is that “The Iowa Democratic Party made things worse by hiding the issue behind its delayed results for hours on Caucus night. Then, it released only a portion of results.” Politifact gave a similar claim a “false” rating, but let’s explore this claim for ourselves and see if we can determine its level of veracity.
First, where and why did this article get published? I encountered this article on Google News, but it could also be found on other news conglomerates, and the CNN website, TV channel, or other affiliations. The Iowa Caucus was a pivotal moment in the timeline of the Democratic side of the upcoming election. When it was released last week that there were complications with the voting results and the app that was used to calculate the ballots, there was national concern. Debate and conspiracies sparked about the origin of the issues and whether or not there was malicious intention involved on the part of the Democratic Party.
It would also be a good idea to check out the author of the article that makes the claim, Zachary B. Wolf. Preliminary research on DuckDuckGo shows he is a longtime political journalist. A lot of his pieces are analyses, allowing a bit of the author’s bias to show through, but based on this reading he does not seem to allow his views to overtake his work, although they may provide a sheen of skepticism about the honesty of politicians.
After investigating the author’s background, I did some searching on DuckDuckGo using the site search option. I found several articles on Snopes and Politifact that I used to dig a little deeper. Wikipedia backtracking provided links to related news articles, the actual results (which unfortunately and ironically did not open due to an error) and a glimmer of truth. Articles from The New York Times and other big news outlets, along with the investigations from the fact-checking sites confirm: the results of the Caucus were delayed. However, it’s a bit of a stretch to say that the issue was hidden. While the Iowa Democratic Party did not release the name of the company behind the app they were using, the information was available to the media and the public in other ways. This fact-check is really a matter of wordplay. The claims are essentially true: yes, the results were delayed, yes, only some results were initially released. The information could be worded and interpreted in various ways, so this particular fact-check is a draw. The facts are right, the wording could be a bit biased, but there is no conclusive proof of misinformation.
This fact-check is really a matter of wordplay. The claims are essentially true: yes, the results were delayed, yes, only some results were initially released. The information could be worded and interpreted in various ways, so this particular fact-check is a draw. The facts are right, the wording could be a bit biased, but there is no conclusive proof of misinformation.
Before we abandon this discussion, let’s take a closer look at my sources. Here are the prevalent articles I read:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/08/politics/us-democracy-future-iowa-caucuses/index.html
https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/feb/04/what-we-know-about-shadow-acronym-and-iowa-caucuse/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses
The articles from Politifact served both to give an unbiased overview of the situation and debunk the idea that the Iowa Democratic Party was hiding results. They also provided information on the software side of the issue, which is a discussion for another post. The Wikipedia page on the Iowa Caucus was not as helpful as the encyclopedia was during my first blog post, but it helped to convince me that the truth was more complicated than the original CNN article suggested.
That’s the verdict. Delayed results does not mean deliberate dishonesty, but it does leave some lingering questions about digital integration into our voting methods. What is the best way to vote in the modern era?
All of my sources are either mentioned or hyperlinked, and the rest is my own original content. Thanks for reading!
What's Up? Writing and Tech 