- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
- Click to share on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
- Click here to share on LinkedIn (Opens in a new window)
- Click to email a friend (Opens in a new window)
The Democratic fiasco in Iowa is not over yet 1:46
Editor's Note: Roberto Izurieta is director of Latin American Projects at George Washington University. He has worked in political campaigns in several countries in Latin America and Spain and has been an advisor to the presidents Alejandro Toledo of Peru, Vicente Fox of Mexico and Alvaro Colom of Guatemala. Izurieta is also an analyst of political issues at CNN in Spanish.
(CNN Spanish) - The “Iowa case” is not an accident. What happened is the foreseeable consequence of a succession of human errors that emerge from the negligence and lack of professionalism of those who had the responsibility of scrutinizing the votes obtained in each of the 1678 assemblies. The electoral authority, the Iowa Democratic Party, has had to recount and validate the votes before they are added. It is unacceptable that those responsible for the electoral centers have to spend hours on the phone to inform a central command of the election results of their party assemblies. What happened is of an unprecedented incompetence. At least, it should not be a fact of any US institution.
Iowa is a thriving state of the United States, a country that has been and continues to be a reference for many things: a healthy and liberal economy, social and political economic stability, strong and independent institutions, demanding in the professionalism of its leaders, developer of centers of innovation, of technological advances and also of the exercise of a modern and democratic policy. It is the country that sheltered the development of Apple, Amazon and IBM, among many other global companies. It is the same place where the most recognized technological universities in the world are. That being so, shouldn't it be at the forefront of technology and election procedures? Was it not enough 20 years ago to go through the international shame of having to pass a vote-by-vote count for weeks in the state of Florida to determine the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, between Bush and Gore?
Well, it doesn't seem like we've learned the lesson. What happened this week in the Iowa election is a shame: where the ineptitude is such that "even" the existence of corruption is ruled out. Few think that in the Iowa electoral process there was fraud or technological interference. The errors were mainly incompetence.
We understand that each state defines its standards within the framework of its local laws; However, a state party election is nothing other than the first link in a chain that concludes with that of the national election, therefore, the consequences of the negligence observed have implications of a national nature, so their quality standards and transparency should be at least minimal.
The help of technology (machines) for counting and / or transmitting results is only one aspect of the tools used in a system that is supposed to be consistent, and as such, should have been subjected to tests under rigorous supervision to ensure transparency. It is unacceptable and to some extent, an insult to the intelligence of the average citizen, that someone uses as a defense that a software application has failed them for lack of user training, or because they forgot a password, or because they did not have time to Apply a last minute patch. It is of an improvisation rarely seen.
The patience of people is running out. At the rhythm of the times we live in, no one can afford to tell the citizens, whatever their preference party, to wait patiently for the results of an assembly as they will be counted by hand for this or that reason. Technology should help facilitate and strengthen processes and not suspect the purest of a democracy, respect for the vote of each citizen.
Finally, the collateral consequences that cause this type of undesirable events must be taken into account. If not, how long does the reader of these lines believe that it will take until those who make use of this unhappy incident appear to position their interests against technology, or the assembly model (caucus) or the transparency with which Do political parties manage their election processes?
It's time to start doing the right things. Let us not let the incompetence of those responsible rest in technocratic excuses. Technology is an inanimate resource, stupidity is human.
* Sergio Angelini is executive president of the MSA SA Group and MSA Copr Comitia. He has a long history as an expert in mission critical process management. He is a specialist in electoral processes and has directed the successful implementation of electoral technology in terms of counting and electronic voting in Latin America.
Iowa Party Assemblies
