• Live
    • Audio Only
  • google plus
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • The Sanders campaign cited “mathematical errors and inconsistencies” in 25 precincts and three satellite caucuses.

    The Sanders campaign cited “mathematical errors and inconsistencies” in 25 precincts and three satellite caucuses. | Photo: Reuters

Published 10 February 2020

A recanvass is not a recount but control of the vote count against paper records to make sure the counts were reported accurately. 

The presidential campaigns of United States Senator Bernie Sanders and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg requested Monday a partial recanvass of the results of Iowa’s Democratic caucuses.

RELATED: 

US: Sanders Releases Internal Results Suggests Victory in Iowa

The Sanders campaign cited “mathematical errors and inconsistencies” in 25 precincts and three satellite caucuses, claiming these errors would change the results in the senator’s favor if amended. 

The Buttigieg campaign asked the party to check the results in 66 precincts, according to the Iowa Democratic Party.

A recanvass is not a recount, but control of the vote count against paper records to make sure the counts were reported accurately. 

Both Buttigieg and Sanders claimed victory in the caucuses, the former because he holds a tenuous lead in the delegate count, and Sanders because he won the popular vote. 

The number of delegates won by each candidate across the country will determine the Democratic nominee for the general election. 

Iowa awards 41 national delegates in its caucuses. At the present time, Buttigieg has 13 and Sanders has 12. They are followed by Elizabeth Warren with eight, Joe Biden with six and Amy Klobuchar with one.

The 41st and final delegate from the state will go to the front runner. While the state party declared Buttigieg as the winner on Sunday, the caucus will not make a final decision until the requested recanvass - and any potential recount - is done.

After reviewing the results, some news agencies like The Associated Press said they were unable to indicate a winner because “the results may not be fully accurate and are still subject to potential revision.”

Important issues in collecting and reporting data from individual precincts marred the caucuses, prompting criticism and raising doubts from the candidates and the public. 

There were also errors in the complicated math used by caucus volunteers to calculate the outcome of each individual caucus.

Comment
0
Comments
Post with no comments.