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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Democrats IT Politics

Iowa Caucus Debacle is One of the Most Stunning Tech Failures Ever (cnbc.com) 439

The Iowa caucus debacle represents one of the most stunning failures of information security ever. From a column: This failure was delivered by the same Iowa Democratic Party officials who have said for the last four years they were "ramping up" their technology capabilities, convening seemingly endless security task forces to ensure foreign powers did not disenfranchise voters, and collaborating with federal agencies like the Department of Homeland Security to make sure everyone was in the loop on voting security. Voters will be paying close attention to how party leaders ensure that votes going forward have clear contingency plans in place, not just to protect against hackers, but from all types of technology failures, including applications that might not work.

Iowa officials counting the results coming in Monday from the caucusing app reported irregularities that required them to switch from the app to counting votes manually. Party officials said the "underlying data" put into the app was fine, but it is unclear as of yet how they know this or even what they consider "underlying data." "Last night, more than 1,600 precinct caucuses gathered across the state of Iowa and at satellite caucuses around the world," the Iowa Democratic Party said in a statement Tuesday. "As precinct caucus results started coming in, the IDP ran them through an accuracy and quality check. It became clear that there were inconsistencies with the reports. The underlying cause of these inconsistencies was not immediately clear, and required investigation, which took time."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Iowa Caucus Debacle is One of the Most Stunning Tech Failures Ever

Comments Filter:
  • On the contrary! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fustakrakich ( 1673220 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @01:53PM (#59690052) Journal

    It's all going exactly as planned

    • Thinking the same thing, but a question or two still lingers...

      ...all the candidates think they won (their internal polling numbers say so!), so it likely didn't have the effect that was intended. Also, how will they similarly bungle NH and the 47 other states along the way? At least in 2016 it was a one-stop shop called "superdelegates", but they willingly bunged that up after the party base went all pitchfork-and-torchey on them over it.

      • by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @02:00PM (#59690090)

        The Superdelegates will still decide the Dem nominee. The rule change following 2016 only says they don't get a say until the second ballot. It's clear that there probably won't be a nominee on the first ballot unless they allow Bernie to win and all indications are they're rigging the primaries against him already again. I still fully expect Hillary to be chosen in a brokered convention - that's been the Clinton Machine strategy since Nov 2016.

        It's going to be a hilarious 10 months until election day. Trump might win 45+ states.

        • by XXongo ( 3986865 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @02:35PM (#59690348) Homepage
          Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.

          A new app being rolled out for the first time, being used mostly by retiree volunteers who are, to boot, in areas with poor data access?

          Yep, stupidity. Not conspiracy.

          • That is a very bad heuristic in a context defined by motivated reasoning. Furthermore, it's known that the developer of this software received money from Buttgieg. It's pretty obvious at this point that the CIA just wants to apply its considerable experience to manipulating a domestic election.

          • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @03:24PM (#59690632) Homepage Journal

            The problem with your idea is that the DNC conspired before. Why wouldn't they do it again? While we're talking about what it's safest to assume, it's safest to assume that a tiger hasn't changed its stripes.

            • by Sumus Semper Una ( 4203225 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @05:43PM (#59691234)

              So there are deft, shadowy puppet masters behind the scenes able to change the outcome to whatever they want, but unable to do so without planning ahead and calling national attention to the method they're using to do it? Yeah, that seems way more likely than that they overpaid some company to build an app that was inadequately tested, had inadequate training, and was probably inadequate for the conditions in all the counties it would be used in...

              Assuming there has been a conspiracy, in no way does that mean that *everything* that goes awry from that point on is a part of that conspiracy.

          • by Jmc23 ( 2353706 )
            Hey, that's the USA's default coverup for everything. Just portray a buffoon committing the actions.
          • by arglebargle_xiv ( 2212710 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @08:59PM (#59691774)

            Was just going to say the same thing. Is there actually anyone here who couldn't see this coming? Of course it was going to fail badly, it's a large-scale IT project rushed out under time pressure, and it involves online voting. It's 100% guaranteed to fail, or at least to have serious problems, this was predestined the minute it was initiated.

            And a nitpick about "one of the most stunning tech failures ever", it's nowhere near that, it's just business as usual. The really big failures cost billions or tens of billions and drag on sometimes for decades.

            Also interesting to see the masses of conspiracy-theory crap around this. Every other major IT project failure ever is due to mismanagement, unrealistic schedules, constantly changing goals, etc etc, but this one very specific project is because {insert favorite conspiracy theory here}. Yeah, definitely. A conspiracy.

        • by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @04:25PM (#59690972)

          still fully expect Hillary to be chosen in a brokered convention - that's been the Clinton Machine strategy since Nov 2016.

          You have a rich internal life.

          However, reality doesn't follow a movie script as much as you want it to.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by omelet112 ( 6301586 )
          Some seriously pathetic partisan cheer leading going on there. The only people still obsessed with Hillary are the tribal conservatives that gobble up hannity and co type polemic. She's their favorite villain. I don't doubt the real possibility that Trump will win the election even though he is not my choice. I am absolutely dismayed with failures within our voting system and your apparent celebration at it.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by spun ( 1352 )

        The intended effect was the same as the intended effect of declaring Mitt Romney the winner in Iowa back in 2012. It's to blunt the narrative of a political outsider starting with "momentum." Sure, some weeks later they back tracked and admitted Rick Santorum actually won. By that time though, Rick's campaign was dead in the water.

        I doubt there was any vote tampering, as caucuses are open votes where you have to stand up and be counted in person. This simply gave them the ability, if things were looking go

        • Re:On the contrary! (Score:5, Informative)

          by fropenn ( 1116699 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @02:20PM (#59690218)
          Warren, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar all beat Sanders at my precinct. In fact, Sanders wasn't even viable (less than 15% vote) in the first round. Him not winning doesn't mean it is a conspiracy. It just means he's not as popular as you think he is.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Don't tell that to bernie bros! They start frothing at the mouth in anger praising how great Gulags were.

          • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @02:34PM (#59690330)

            Polls are more accurate in primary states like NH than in caucus states Iowa.

            Voting in a primary is easy. I just tick a box and put the ballot in my mailbox. So the participation is high and the voters are the same normal people that participated in the opinion polls.

            Voting in a caucus requires a serious commitment of time and effort. You need to drive to the caucus site, often on cold icy roads, and spend half a day caucusing and negotiating. The people willing to do this are not representative of the general public, thus the polls aren't as predictive.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by alvinrod ( 889928 )
          I wouldn't worry too much about Bernie being affected by Iowa. He's been expected to take the New Hampshire primary next week for quite a while now, so it's not as though this would torpedo his campaign. The bigger loser is someone like Buttigieg who doesn't poll very high nationally, but could get a lot of buzz from an early victory in a state like Iowa.

          Sanders also appears to have some better people working for his campaign this time around. While all of this uncertainty was in the air they put out the
          • by spun ( 1352 )

            Yes, I agree that the biggest benefit to party insiders and their big money donors is that this gives cover to Biden's piss poor showing.

            Thank you for your nuanced take on this. If people on both sides were as fair minded as you, politics would be a much more civil endeavor. If you ever care to engage in civil debate over Bernie's policies, just ask.

    • They were supposed to have results much faster than this. But, there were warnings yesterday that their tech wasn't going to work.

    • Re:On the contrary! (Score:4, Informative)

      by Dorianny ( 1847922 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @02:08PM (#59690136) Journal
      The "problems" can be summed up to

      1 Officials in areas with not WIFI and poor cell reception are unable to access the internet

      2. Officials with old phones are experiencing crashes and other technical issues.

      3. Officials with little tech skill and training can't figure out how to report results with the app

      Still inexcusable, all these issues could not only been foreseen, they were to be expected.

      • by apoc.famine ( 621563 ) <apoc.famine@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @02:27PM (#59690274) Journal

        Wrong.

        The problems are due to one and only one thing: Lack of testing.

        Before you deploy something like this, you give it a real-world test. At minimum one. Better to do several.

        Months in advance you pick an evening and have everyone with the app all send you numbers you already know. Then you see if they match. And then maybe you do that a few more times just to gently unit test the thing in as close to a live setting as you can.

        That would uncover all of these problems, and let you fix them well before it's go time. Not least the "not enough internet connection to download the app" problem. FFS, you could do it every Monday night for 3 months until all the bugs were shaken out.

        • by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @02:54PM (#59690454)

          The problems are due to one and only one thing: Lack of testing.

          No, lack of training was *also* a problem. Some caucus officials were installing it for the first time last night. They got the standard Android warning about side loading an APK and mistook this warning for a malware warning. They thought they were about to be hacked and did not install it. Also there was apparently no real security designed into this system as officials were supposed to use their personal phones for reporting election results.

        • by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @04:36PM (#59691020)

          The first step in a caucus is to elect the chair. So the person in charge isn't known until after the caucus starts. Which means they can't pre-install the app on that person's phone before the caucus. Nor can they train the chair before the caucus.

          That being said, they could distribute official DNC phones/tablets with the app already loaded to each caucus site, and have someone from the party present who was trained on the app to answer questions.

          Or just do it the old fashioned way and call in the results.

      • I'd say the root of the problem is that the app was slapped together in two months. There's simply no way to do a proper job in that short a time. Everything else stems from that.

        https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0... [nytimes.com]

        And I agree that this is inexcusable. It's not like this caucus sneaked up on anyone. They literally had years to get this right. When the Democratic National Committee recommended the old system be abandoned, someone should have had the internal fortitude to say "That's a great idea. We'll lo

        • I'd say the root of the problem is that the app was slapped together in two months. There's simply no way to do a proper job in that short a time.

          Bullshit.

          This "app" just sent numbers attached to names back to a server. If you can't build, test, and deploy that in a week, you shouldn't be doing that job. 12 names, total votes for each name. That's it. No geolocation, no graphics, no 3D, no fingerprint scanning, no using any of the hardware on the phone, nothing that would be remotely difficult. You're not building your own encryption, FFS, you're not even doing push notifications!

          And in that case, why is this even an app? You could have whipped this

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      It's all going exactly as planned

      And to think that I wasted all those mod points on the Ethiopians writing homework assignments for Western shitlib-turd children of affluence.

      [Which actually is part & parcel of the same phenomenon that we're talking about here.]

      Approximately 50% of the USA no longer lives in Reality, and is now being tossed around psychologically in a violent maelstrom of Frankfurt School hypnotic cultural poisoning, utterly oblivious to their own personal absence of Freedom of th
    • Exactly. First Hillary takes out Biden with the impeachment proceedings, and now her ex-staffers have put a wrench into this technology that has now stunted Sanders and left the Democratic Party in disarray, paving the way for a contested convention where she can swoop in and declare victory.
  • by sycodon ( 149926 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @01:55PM (#59690058)

    Apps may be cool, but you should probably just stick with what works.

    • Ever since the punchcard failure in Florida in 2000, we've been trying to get this right. Appears these iPhones are not yet part of the solution.

      • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @02:10PM (#59690152)

        Ever since the punchcard failure in Florida in 2000, we've been trying to get this right....

        Trying? You say that as if we didn't have any valid solutions for 100+ years prior to Chad hanging onto a ballot box.

        What's wrong with K.I.S.S. solutions again? Not enough corruption?

        • by Tom ( 822 )

          What's wrong with K.I.S.S. solutions again? Not enough corruption?

          Too many people involved who might cry foul.

          Imagine ballots were counted by hand, with observers from both parties (and anyone else who wants). Then reported upwards by phone calls or some other simple tech that is also easy to observe for people without any tech training. Again, observers are present at both ends of the phone call.

          Not easy to mess with the numbers enough to make a difference without having a bunch of people involved that need to be bribed or blackmailed. Too many people for not at least on

      • by sjames ( 1099 )

        It's just so damned hard to poke a hole in the ballot when it's on an iPhone. Clearly they need a sharper stylus.

  • by OYAHHH ( 322809 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @01:56PM (#59690068)

    Just keep pointing the other direction long enough for the Clinton apparatus to steal the election from Bernie.

    • One *big* problem with your "Conspiracy Theory." Clinton is not running.
      • by sjames ( 1099 )

        Consider it a metaphor. The closet right wingers still want someone who would have been a passable GOP candidate just a few years ago.

        • by RightSaidFred99 ( 874576 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @02:53PM (#59690450)
          You are correct. I despise Trump but will not vote for verminous commie scum like Sanders or Warren, so I'm hoping someone sane wins, or that Biden wins.
        • Consider it a metaphor. The closet right wingers still want someone who would have been a passable GOP candidate just a few years ago.

          But its not a metaphor, its literally f'n true. Former Hillary staff started the company that wrote the app!!!

          "At the center of the confusion is an app reportedly built by a for-profit company called “Shadow Inc.” ... The LA Times notes that Shadow began life as Groundbase, which was founded by former Clinton 2016 digital campaign staffers Gerard Niemira and Krista Davis."
          https://techcrunch.com/2020/02... [techcrunch.com]

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        She'll be chosen as VP to an octogenarian who will unexpectedly die of suicide by a bullet in the back of the head after packing bags for a vacation.

      • One *big* problem with your "Conspiracy Theory." Clinton is not running.

        ...now. Wait until the convention when things get chaotic. I'm not saying there will be a Brokered Convention, but...

      • Except he said Clinton "apparatus" which in this case likely refers to the established traditional Dem base (Schumer, Schiff, Pelosi, et al) currently backing Biden. Everyone knows the DNC really wants to throw their weight behind Biden this cycle, as they did with Hillary last time.

      • Yet.

      • Apparently the company that made the app was founded by two of her high level campaign staffers, as reported by many mainstream media outlets now. And she's publicly blamed Bernie for her 2016 loss and expressed personal dislike of him. Repeatedly. It's not a good look.
      • One *big* problem with your "Conspiracy Theory." Clinton is not running.

        That's just what she wants you to think... :)

        It's not too late to jump in, so don't rule her out quite yet... Heck, if this thing goes to the convention to decide, it's *possible* (albeit unlikely) for her to broker a deal and end up the candidate again.

        No, I'm not advocating this as a likely scenario, but at this point, the field is still as wide open as Iowa's corn fields.

  • by soycuck ( 6276170 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @01:57PM (#59690072)
    Iowa had nothing to do with it. Lets put the blame where it belongs.
  • by Kunedog ( 1033226 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @02:03PM (#59690102)
    After this mess, regard with increasing suspicion anyone who pushes electronic voting, or any system without a paper trail. Any programmer can tell you how much opportunity exists in a piece of software for fraud to occur invisibly (and untraceably after the fact).

    Such a public disaster as this should end the argument (or at least the excuse of ignorance), unless you subscribe to the alternate theory that this is all a DNC cover story to avoid or delay the announcement of a slamdunk victory for Bernie.
    • Yep. E-voting's biggest flaw is expecting too much from people (not necessarily locals) that have too much to lose, hoping they won' t intervene in the elections, specially if these are ripe and open for intervention and hacking.

      At least with paper votes and physical ballots they have to visibly intervene to make a fraud.
  • by CQDX ( 2720013 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @02:04PM (#59690108)

    There will be glitches and delays aplenty until the vote count comes up the way the party bosses of the local districts dictate. We know there is corruption in the system. Notice how many uncounted ballots are found days after the election? Electronic voting only makes the corruption more efficient.

    • by jandoe ( 6400032 )

      Maybe they should ask India how to organize elections? They could ask some develop country but it's probably better to learn from someone at your own level.

  • As if competent engineers can't build a reliable voting system.

    Maybe my assumptions are too high.

    • by presidenteloco ( 659168 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @02:35PM (#59690352)
      yet.

      So we don't know if there was any or all of:
      1) One or several types of problems,
      2) A basic tech develop, test, deploy, test-at-scale process fail resulting in lack of scaled performance, or deadlocks, or whatever.
      3) An app tallying logic fail.
      4) A hard to use for beginners UI/UX compounded by lack of a practice (with real users) and feedback and fix and retest round.
      5) Some kind of user authentication debacle
      6) ....
    • As if competent engineers

      It's not particularly clear that competent engineers were involved in developing an app in two months and deploying it on election day with no large-scale testing.

  • They ran accuracy and quality checks which showed problems.

    Did they run similar checks in prior cycles? The Iowa caucuses are a series hundreds/thousands of meetings run by people who may in many cases being doing it for the first times and then phoning their results in. Do they really think there were no mistakes in previous years?

    One of this years checks was comparing photos of calculation sheets with the numbers entered in the app. Did they have such double checking in the past?

    I suspect that previous ye

  • Double Fail (Score:4, Informative)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @02:19PM (#59690214)

    When many of the leaders of the various caucuses could not report using the app, they attempted to do it "the old fashioned way" and call their results in. But the people in charge apparently had far fewer people manning the phones this time around because they wouldn't be needed, thanks to the new technology.

    So much stupid, plenty to go around.

  • by Thelasko ( 1196535 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @02:21PM (#59690228) Journal
    If you want to see a bunch of conspiracy theories, read the comments on any article concerning the Iowa Caucus Debacle.
  • by will_die ( 586523 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @02:26PM (#59690258) Homepage
    This was not even close to going down as a major tech failure, it is even lower on the list than some of the video games that had issues in the first week. Compared to the Warcraft 3 reforged issues, blizzard action is more a tech failure than this.
    With this nothing of value was lost. The votes will still get counted and even with little petey claiming he won that will not matter.
    If anything this should go down as a political failure. Previously working and tested software was dropped so that they could pay money to a company owned by high ranking democrats. That software was not tested because they wanted to keep it under their own control.
    • by Leuf ( 918654 )

      Getting to play a video game or not does not change anything in the world. The importance of the Iowa caucus is not how many delegates get assigned. It's about creating a buzz for the candidate that wins or does better than expected that they can then try to build off Millions of dollars were spent and thousands of volunteers for campaigns worked the phones to try to get this buzz for their candidate and they have nothing to show for it.

      They had a window last night where they were going to be the story.

  • by laird ( 2705 ) <lairdp@gm a i l.com> on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @02:35PM (#59690344) Journal

    According to https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0... [nytimes.com] the app was a custom development, started two months ago, that only started field testing less than a month ago, with no "at scale" testing or training. So whoever decided that they should inject new, untested software into an election on short notice is an idiot. As is whoever promised that they could reliably deliver a mission-critical application on short notice on a $63,000 total budget. It was also terrible planning to have a fall-back plan of a call center staffed with only a dozen people when nearly 1,700 precincts called in at the same time, and each call took 20 minutes to work through.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0... [nytimes.com]

    I think that the improved transparency that they agreed to four years ago, in response to the concerns raised by Sanders' campaign, probably helped reveal the issues in the process, because when you publish the raw votes for the first and 'realigned' ballots, and the estimated delegate equivalents, it becomes obvious if there are any issues. Specifically, they said that the way they knew there were problems is that the three numbers didn't align. Previously they just released the estimated delegate counts, making it easy to obscure any issues with the election process. The actual caucus process and rules have been essentially unchanged for decades.

    • EXACTLY! Our "app" culture took what should have been a few HTML forms and turned it into something likely developed on a very bloated framework, and they likely used rapid development tools, meaning much "reference" code was likely used, and the app was published for volunteers' personal devices, bringing further variability into its deployment.

      They would have been better of developing for a specific device (like a $89 COBY tablet) and distributing those single purpose, locked down devices to the precin
    • According to https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/03/us/politics/iowa-caucus-app.html the app was a custom development, started two months ago, that only started field testing less than a month ago, with no "at scale" testing or training.

      Wow. I've done applications that are a lot less mission critical, but have more development and testing time. I couldn't imagine being told that I'm going to develop an online application to record votes and that I'd have one month to develop and one month to test. As a develope

  • Let me preface this by pointing out that I haven't the vaguest idea what sort of system they have put in place, so my argument here could be complete crap.

    There has been a lot of really great work done in the last decade or so by the academic security community into the area of election auditability. The idea is that, under a pretty stringent set of assumptions, you can set things up to allow you to mathematically prove that ballots weren't lost or miscounted, and this can be done without violating voter anonymity, or enabling vote-buying or voter coercion. This is far, far better than simply using paper trails to enable manual recounts, because recounts can only count the ballots that get counted. The audit systems can't, of course, count ballots that were lost, and they can't necessarily identify fake ballots that were fraudulently added... but they can identify when something like that has happened.

    It may be that the Democratic party has implemented one of these systems and that the system provided evidence of manipulation. If so, this may well be short term pain for a long term improvement in the integrity of the caucus balloting process.

    In the long run, we should look at requiring the states to implement auditable elections in the generals as well, though more research into how to not only identify but recover from fraud may be needed first. It would arguably be worse for democracy for us to be able to prove that our election was manipulated but not to be able to do anything about it than it would be for us not to know, or merely to suspect.

  • by chipperdog ( 169552 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @02:51PM (#59690432) Homepage
    Trouble is we've accepted $#!++y software development over the last 25 years or so...What should have just been a few html forms (using encrypted transport and 2FA of course) ended up being an app that was likely written in a bloated framework, using "rapid" development tools (i.e. lots of "reference" code) and little testing....Even a CBSN commentator last night was indicating this whole thing could have been reported on a Google Sheet..

    Also from published reports, it sounds like this app was installed on volunteers personal devices, so that greatly added to the number of variables in play in deploying the app (if they didn't want to go the html form option, they might have been better off just building the whole thing on a COBY tablet and distributing 1700 $89 tables pre-configured)...Some of the Iowa Public Radio interviews that played over noon hour with caucus attendees, said some their precinct leader were installing the app for the first time during the caucus, other commonly published accounts indicate no training on the software was given to the leaders who needed it....I mean wouldn't you have training sessions on how to lead and report the caucus in the week before, as it sounds like there was confusion in the process, not just the technology?
  • by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @03:01PM (#59690500) Homepage Journal

    Can't imagine why it failed.

    Technical aside: I was surprised it took caucus captains so long to do what we did in the 1996 caucus here in Washington State, or that Bernie did in 2016 here. You text a pic of the result sheet to the appropriate person, and drive the sheet to the counting location. While doing that, another person phones in the results, even though you're in a very slow queue.

    Obviously Washington State, as a more Hispanic state with more African American and Asian population, should be First in the Nation. And we'll report the results when we finish them, in 7-10 days, since we vote on paper ballots by mail.

  • by theendlessnow ( 516149 ) * on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @03:29PM (#59690674)
    "Who won?"

    Bernie

    "It's broken. Can you take a look?"

    Ok, it's fixed now.

    "Who won?"

    Bernie

    "It's still broken. Let me know when it's really fixed."
  • by knghtrider ( 685985 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @04:15PM (#59690918)
    Voting is the ONE thing that should never, ever have gone electronic. Paper ballots all the way. or go back to old-school lever voting machines.

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Working...