Let’s talk about the Iowa Caucuses, shall we? I always like to let the dust settle a bit before I do this kind of a snarky, smarty-pants write up. ‘Cause let’s be honest: Scratch coding an app in two weeks for a major political party — one that will be beta-tested on live TV(!) — is a little outside of my wheelhouse. But I do know what I don’t know, which I’ve been told is the beginning of true wisdom. I seem to be growing wiser by the day.
Full disclosure: I made my way to a Mayor Pete town hall late in December. This is not an endorsement, mind you. (Although it’s not not an endorsement either. This is another strange year for politics, so feel free to project what you will upon my ambiguity. ‘Tis the season for assumptions, and the subsequent putting-of-ones-foot-in-ones-mouth that always follows.)
As you know, I live in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. What you probably didn’t know is that Sioux Falls is only a nice summer’s day bike-ride away from Iowa. Since moving here I’ve been kicking myself for not checking out the retail-level politics available right across the border every four years.
It’s a great opportunity for political junkies (or just the mildly curious) to shake hands and share the air with the next President, the next Veep, the next UN ambassador, or at the very least, your next Cable TV Bloviator.
So this year we scoped out one small-town rally. Next time I hope to investigate a few more. It’s fascinating what these guys put themselves through.
But back to the app, the app that failed, the app sourced by some company called Shadow. (Shadow! Really? What, SPECTRE wasn’t available?) First of all, it’s not a bad idea to build an app to run a thing like this. The Iowa Caucuses are a charmingly messy affair, a little silly, a little weird. That’s what makes it fun! An app could straighten things out, keep all the numbers in one place, do the math automatically, crank out fun graphs, and verify users in ways that the old system of phone calls and friendly volunteers never could.
So yes, I can see the appeal. They’ve got 1,700 locations! Two rounds of voting! All of this needs to be tracked and tabulated. But I can also see the pitfalls. An app requires users to engage in an additional download, and will need to work flawlessly on a variety of devices and operating systems. That calls for precinct captains to plan ahead, test, and get comfortable with a new piece of technology…and one that relies on a cell signal. These are requirements that may not be quickly met by an over-worked volunteer lending a hand in an off-the-grid farm town.
My solution? Stick with paper! The security surrounding any electronic voting mechanism is simply too great to be worth the effort, and sadly public trust is in short supply these days. However, if you must get fancy — or you’ve got a budget that someone’s just gotta burn — how about a website? Yes, just a website!
I’m sure it sounded cool to say “We’ve got an app for that!” down at campaign headquarters, but a normal (boring?) website — something with a clean and clear mobile-friendly interface — could have gathered the same data more simply. You’d still have security concerns, but an obscure URL behind an HTTPS connection, using 2-step authentication should be more than sufficient to get initial results delivered to party headquarters and keep CNN happy.
And a website could be accessed from a variety of devices, on whatever internet connection was most reliable down at the Grange or the Fire Hall or wherever your local caucus happens to be.
Apps are great – don’t get me wrong. The fact that I have instant access to dozens of useful gizmos in my pocket at all times is nigh-on miraculous. But take care before downloading. Ask yourself if you really need a thing, and why someone wants you to have that thing running so close to your data.
Not to end on a conspiratorial note, but take a moment to read the following excerpt from Wikipedia with a brief history of the disaster. Just try to follow the money on this one:
The app in question was provided by a 5-month-old company, Shadow Inc., which failed to develop and test the product adequately. The CEO and founder, Tara McGowan, also founded the ACRONYM corporation in 2017 and Courier Newsroom in 2019. Her husband, Michael Halle, is a senior strategist to the campaign of Pete Buttigieg. Multiple unverified claims of the Buttigieg campaign funding the organization, having investment interests in, and even sharing partial ownership in either company have been made. However, the only verified transactions between the Buttigieg campaign and either entity is a contract for text and messages services. The Joe Biden campaign had also contracted with Shadow, Inc for the same services, as well as former candidate Kristen Gillibrand. After the app failure, McGowan distanced herself and ACRONYM from Shadow Inc., stating that it was an “independent” entity. Both companies are founded and directed by McGowan and Halle, and they share the same registered address. While the corporation’s official website doesn’t officially name its members, data gathered from LinkedIn reveals that its top executives were all involved in one way or another with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election campaign. James Hickey (Shadow, Inc.’s Chief Operating Officer) and Krista Davis (its Chief Software Architect) were both vital to the digital aspect of her campaign.
Crikey. That’s some serious back-scratching going on. Was there an RFP? Some competition between well-vetted the vendors? Doubt it.
Let’s remember that throwing computers at complexity will not necessarily produce simpler results. New projects are exciting (and I like getting a paycheck!) but ask yourself: Who will truly benefit from the new initiative? Will it be your customers? Will it be your fans? Or is this something that weaseled its way into the budget and has somehow created it’s own gravity, it’s own pull on the process. Sometimes that’s how business works. Politics too.
So do your homework, folks. Don’t get sold on someone else’s solution. And then please: Get out and vote!
