Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Democrats Government Math Stats United States

Perfect Coin-Toss Record Broke 6 Clinton-Sanders Deadlocks In Iowa (marketwatch.com) 634

schwit1 writes: While it was hard to call a winner between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders last night, it's easy to say who was luckier. The race between the Democrat presidential hopefuls was so tight in the Iowa caucus Monday that in at least six precincts, the decision on awarding a county delegate came down to a coin toss. And Clinton won all six, media reports said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Perfect Coin-Toss Record Broke 6 Clinton-Sanders Deadlocks In Iowa

Comments Filter:
  • by Etherwalk ( 681268 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @04:48PM (#51423831)

    Amazingly, the coin tosses weren't done intelligently. They weren't called in the air, they weren't videotaped closely enough to show which side was up or that the coins were not double-headed, etc...

    I'm not saying it's a conspiracy--just that it was a really stupid way to decide an election. Obviously the state should count all of the coin-toss delegates and split them between the tied candidates. They can't do that retroactively for this election but should change the rules for the next one.

    • by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @04:52PM (#51423861)

      Obviously the state should count all of the coin-toss delegates and split them between the tied candidates.

      Isn't that process up to the democratic party?

      • Obviously the state should count all of the coin-toss delegates and split them between the tied candidates.

        Isn't that process up to the democratic party?

        Yes, I meant the Democratic party for the state, since it's the Democratic caucus. Technically it would also not be state wide so much as next-step-in-the-hierarchy wide--these were the *local* delegates, so it gets distilled through a couple of layers.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        Isn't that process up to the democratic party?

        Exactly... Heads I win. Tails you lose...

      • by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @05:35PM (#51424325) Journal

        It is. The DNC has their way of conducting their nominating process, which is different from what the RNC does. For example, the RNC has no "super delegates" to try to steer the nomination towards the establishment's chosen favorite, like the DNC does.

        (Hillary already had over 300 of these so-called super-delegates lined up before the first vote was cast, which is more than 15x what she won in Iowa.)

    • by Orgasmatron ( 8103 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @04:54PM (#51423893)

      As long as both candidates had a representative present, and neither objected, the tosses were fair enough, particularly for government work.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @06:04PM (#51424649)

        The coin toss is just a typical media misdirection, the real story is in the voting machine fraud and the vote count fraud.

        Those who understand how the world really works knows The Rothschilds has already picked Clinton (see cover of the 2016 Januaray editions of the Economist).

        Clinton voter fraud in Polk County, Iowa Caucus [c-span.org]
        Voter Fraud and 'Missing' Precincts: How Clinton Stole Iowa [russia-insider.com]

        Caucus chair and Clinton precinct captain do not conduct actual count of Clinton supporters and deliberately mislead caucus

        Imagine how many other precincts used similar tactics. The fact that even C-SPAN calls it outright voter fraud should leave Americans with no illusions: The Democratic nominee has already been chosen.

        But wait, it gets worse:

                Sanders's camp says that the Iowa Democratic Party has informed the campaigns that the caucus results from 90 precincts are missing.
                â" John Wagner (@WPJohnWagner)
                February 2, 2016

        That's right: Caucus results from 90 precincts are missing. Clinton is certainly talented at misplacing/deleting things that she doesn't want people to read.

        Hillary Clinton receives $200,000/hour to speak to Goldman Sachs behind closed doors (and no transcripts of what she says are allowed, of course). Do you really think this election hasn't already been bought and paid for?

        "Democracy" is fun.

    • by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @04:56PM (#51423917)

      Obviously the state should count all of the coin-toss delegates and split them between the tied candidates. They can't do that retroactively for this election but should change the rules for the next one.

      Odd, changing the counting rules retroactively is an option when the democratic establishment dislikes the "winner".

      • "The delegates that were decided by coin flips were delegates to the party's county conventions, of which there are thousands selected across the state from 1,681 separate precincts," says the Des Moines Register.

        http://www.desmoinesregister.c... [desmoinesregister.com]

        So it doesn't seem like those six really mattered, in the end....

    • Obviously the state should count all of the coin-toss delegates and split them between the tied candidates

      Isn't that basically what already happens? I thought I read last night that the Iowa Democratic caucus splits the votes based on the percentages, and the percentages were close enough that Clinton and Sanders would each be getting the same number of delegates.

    • They didn't land, they used the all new Acme electronic coin toss simulation booth. With all of the trouble and insecurity of real coins Acme is proud to produce it's new product that will ensure a fair decision every time with the latest security measures* to make sure nobody interferes with the result.

      * - Source code and testing units are NOT available.

    • Then both Bernie and Hillary could both claim to have won . . . and lost . . . at the same time. Now looking over at the Republican corner . . . I think that the folks who have lost, are the American citizens.

      Wouldn't it be cool, if some guy managed to crawl out of the Washington political poop, and declare himself as "socially liberal, fiscally conservative", and get people emotionally enthused about this election? The way I see it now, folks are just looking for the "least worse candidate".

    • You do know that America has had elections decided by playing poker. Yes?
      • by TheCarp ( 96830 )

        You know, it probably doesn't make much difference, we would do better picking by lot.

        SSN 000-35-2462 ..... Report to DC, you are the new president!

        Seriously, you will NEVER convince me this will produce worst results. As long as it was a truely random selection of the population from ages 25-60

  • by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @04:50PM (#51423853)

    Play the futures market as well as Hillary, can arrange to have a perfect 6 out of 6 in a simple coin toss contest..

    Can I see that coin again?

  • by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @04:53PM (#51423877)
    Seems Bill isn't the only Clinton that can get some head when in need.
  • If the coins and flips were fair, the odds against either candidate winning all flips is 97%.

    Given that Clinton did win all six flips, the odds that the flips were fair is ... hmm?

    • by jklovanc ( 1603149 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @04:58PM (#51423941)

      Low probability things do happen.

      • Low probability things do happen.

        In coin flips and Options trading when it benefits Hillary, they SURE do. I always wondered why she didn't hit the Power Ball Lottery myself...

    • I'd look elsewhere for caucus fraud (and there are already reports coming out). A conspiracy to cheat the coin tosses would be huge and impossible to keep quiet.

    • by Holi ( 250190 )
      Well considering these were 6 different coin flips in 6 different locations with 12 different people calling heads or tails, how can you group them together. It seems odd, but is it really?
    • by OzPeter ( 195038 )

      Given that Clinton did win all six flips, the odds that the flips were fair is ... hmm?

      So are you are implying that:

      1) Hillary rigged the coin toss in 6 physically disparate locations in which the need for the coin toss could not have been predicted before hand?

      Or

      2) HIllary rigged the coin toss in all precincts prior to the caucus on the off chance that she and Bernie would poll as a dead heat?

      And by Hillary I don't mean her personally, but people in her campaign or associated with her campaign that wanted to see her win. Hell it could even had been Trump supporters for all the sense that ri

    • The odds for Hillary were always 100% - Bernie doesn't believe in money.

    • You know, it depends on how you flip it, which apparently you can do without having any ill intent.

      Years ago in playing some games with co-workers, a coin toss was part of something. I would occasionally get about 8-10 in a row.

      People used to kind of freak out, because I'd flip the same thing a bunch of times and they said it was statistically impossible. I said I just flipped the coin and they could see me do it.

      Much later I saw things [dailymail.co.uk] which suggested if you know how to flip it, you can control the outc

  • Probability (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jklovanc ( 1603149 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @04:55PM (#51423913)

    It is a 1 in 64 chance of it happening. The odds are not all that bad.

  • by DewDude ( 537374 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @04:58PM (#51423931)
    where they just throw the coin in the air and declare it flipped.
  • by bigsexyjoe ( 581721 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @05:01PM (#51423957)

    I have absolutely no trouble imagining the Clinton campaign giving its people loaded coins. Not that I have proof that that's what happened.

  • In other news the usa is increasingly looking like one of the many banana republics it created. The same methods used for the outer reaches of empire are starting to poison their inventor.
  • She picked the silver side.....
  • by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @05:16PM (#51424131) Homepage

    Why on Earth would anyone ever actually vote for Hillary Clinton? She is a horrid shitstain of a human being who belongs in prison. She is power-mad and worse, part of a dynasty. We don't need that shit in America. So, who are you people who support her? More importantly, WHY do you support her? How can you possibly reward her lawbreaking with an election to the highest office in the land? The arguments I've seen so far are that she's a woman so women should vote for her, and voting Hillary is a kind of protest vote against Trump. Look, there's already Sanders for people who want to throw their votes away, you don't need two protest candidates. I am really geniunely curious how so many of you out there can support her.

    Oh, and for anyone who doesn't think it was a big deal: what if Senator Ted Cruz kept his own private email server that was promptly rooted by several foreign countries, and routed classified emails through there? Kind of puts the right perspective on Hillary's crimes, don't you think?

    • by Holi ( 250190 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @05:26PM (#51424231)
      Why choose Hillary? Well for 1 she already wields a lot of political power, 2 She has the support of a large portion of the wealthy and elites, meaning she will have backing to force things through Congress. 3 She will nominate a SC judge to keep the court from becoming too lopsided. 4. A lot of women would like to see a woman president. 5. because it will enrage the far right and they tend to be ridiculous and ineffective when enraged.

      On a side note, I'll vote for her before Trump or Cruz, but as it stands now none of those three have my vote.
    • by entropy01 ( 2618347 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @05:30PM (#51424263)

      Not a Clinton supporter but my 2 cents: Her supporters like progressivism and are willing to turn a blind eye to the shenanigans. They aren't principled. At least not in a moral sense.
      The most common answer that I hear: "It's time for a woman to be president."
      I didn't know that genitals were a qualification for any job other than porn.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by larkost ( 79011 )

        Your "They aren't principled. At least not in a moral sense." is an example of what is wrong with politics today, and you should be ashamed of posting it. Everyone, including Hillary Clinton, agrees that using a private email server was a bad idea. Obviously it makes complying with all of the document retention rules that were in force harder, but that is not the same thing as impossible. At the time she had it setup that was a fairly common practice, one done by other department heads and her predecessor.

        O

        • by HornWumpus ( 783565 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @06:49PM (#51424993)

          Hillary is patting herself of the back for running her own server.

          Think of the alternatives. On the one hand she's under investigation for the server, on the other she's under indictment because she is unable to hide her email trail of malfeasance.

          The investigation is much better then letting anybody actually get her emails.

        • by khallow ( 566160 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @07:42PM (#51425383)

          Your "They aren't principled. At least not in a moral sense." is an example of what is wrong with politics today, and you should be ashamed of posting it.

          Ok, let's look at your argument.

          On the classification side of things, there is not a lot of solid information about whether something bad was actually done or not. Yes there are seven email threads (twenty-some emails in all) that contain information that is now considered classified. So far no-one with any knowledge of those emails directly has commented on whether that information was classified when those emails were sent. We have heard that those emails did not have classified markers on them, but that again does not mean that the information was not classified at that time.

          In other words, she committed a felony right there by creating and maintaining the server right here since classified information was sent repeatedly and corrective action not taken.

          It's also worth noting here that there's a lot more than a handful of "email threads". We have spy satellite data [washingtontimes.com] stripped of its classified information - that's a felony for whoever did that. We have people, particularly, Sidney Blumenthal without a clearance given access to this information. That is a felony right there. And then we have Clinton instructing [hotair.com] an aide to strip classified markings from an email. That is a felony right there.

          And it's worth noting that this particular email setup has already allowed Clinton to evade FOIA requests [nytimes.com]. I believe that is a felony as well.

          So, saying people who support Hillery Clinton are not morally principled is an example of unprincipled partisanship. Please wait for facts before accusing anyone, let alone making accusations about their supporters. There is plenty to legitimately disagree about in the actual issues in the campaign, without resorting to unsubstantiated mud-slinging.

          Fuck you. This sort of weaseling is exactly why I agree that Clinton supporters are remarkably unprincipled. Notice that you aren't arguing that Clinton didn't commit these crimes, but rather that we can't prove it.

        • You say " the information in those emails was not classified at the time it was sent, then there has been no real wrongdoing here".

          Demonstrably false. If the person had reason to believe the material should be classified then they are obliged to treat it as classified.

          Given that we know some e-mails were SCI-level intelligence, there is reasonable suspicion she should have believed it should be treated as classified.

          If you disagree, is she really competent to be reading classified material in the
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Oh, and for anyone who doesn't think it was a big deal: what if Senator Ted Cruz kept his own private email server that was promptly rooted by several foreign countries, and routed classified emails through there? Kind of puts the right perspective on Hillary's crimes, don't you think?

      Uh, no. No it doesn't. Ted Cruz might have his judgment questioned, but only the most partisan idiot would say he'd done something illegal. If George W. Bush had done the same thing, it might have been something for the Dail

    • by rworne ( 538610 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @05:57PM (#51424565) Homepage

      Easy enough:
      I'm not a supporter, but I can see the reason.

      1. She is what the democrat establishment wants as a nominee. She seems inevitable, so why not toss your support behind the supposed winner?

      I do not think she would be that big of a deal if there were another viable "mainstream" candidate in the ring on the D side. Sanders may appear viable now, but he might not have that appeal in a general election. I do not think Sanders appeals to the bulk of rank and file moderate democrats. It's the radical left wing carrying him at this point.

      2. She has a "D" next to her name. No matter how bad the candidate, party loyalists would rather hold their nose than to pick a candidate (even a possibly better one) in the opposite party. Not that I am claiming it exists here, but it can.

      3. She's untouchable. It's pretty much assumed she'll walk away with at most a fine from this, if not a full, possibly preemptive pardon. it does not matter if she looks dirty, it comes with being a Clinton. It's expected of them.

      4. Nothing will pull the democrats together more than the prospect of losing the White House for the next 4-8 years with all those aging Supreme Court justices waiting to keel over.

      It's not just the Democrats going through this now. The Republican Party wants its chosen candidates and they get Trump and Cruz instead. Both parties are having to fight popular sentiment to get their candidates in the general election.

      Watching both parties try to thwart popular opinion is proving to be quite entertaining, but not nearly as entertaining as a Trump vs Sanders in the general election will be.

  • That's Odd (Score:5, Insightful)

    by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @05:54PM (#51424541)

    I wonder where this video of Sanders winning a coin toss [youtube.com] came from then.

  • by Punto ( 100573 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .botnup.> on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @09:17PM (#51425835) Homepage

    In "at least" six precincts, what does that mean exactly? To me that implies that there were more precincts where they had to decide by coin toss, which means there could have been another 6 where Sanders won. Anyone can cherry pick a sub group of tosses out of a bigger total that came out with an unlikely result..

Every program is a part of some other program, and rarely fits.

Working...