Fantasy Delegates

Look, FHQ has been stubbornly adamant that the bulk of the delegate counts for the 2012 Republican nomination race out there are artificially inflated.¹ This is due in part to either a misguided application of the Democratic Party's proportional delegate allocation rules (see Iowa, Colorado, Maine and now Wyoming) or an equally skewed application of winner-take-all rules (see Minnesota) in all the caucus states but Nevada which have held caucuses thus far. But this is a misleading practice and is obviously based on a flawed logic. I realize that we all want to get a grasp of what the true delegate count is, but over-inflating the count serves no purpose.² [I'll spare you having to read once again that delegates from these states attend the convention technically unbound anyway. Oops.]

Again, it is the caucus states that are driving the discrepancies in the various delegate counts.³ First of all, there are no rules at the state party level in any of these states (Iowa, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota and now Wyoming) that indicates either a winner-take-all or proportional allocation of the delegates. In fact, there are no guidelines in any of these states to determine how many of any given candidate's supporters in attendance at the precinct caucuses get selected to move on to the next step of the process; either the county, district or state convention level. All we know is what a non-binding straw poll of precinct caucus attendees tells us. But as I have pointed out repeatedly, there are plenty of opportunities for people to vote in the straw poll and opt out of the lengthy caucus meeting process before the county, district or state convention delegates are chosen from among the caucusgoers at the precinct caucuses.

Up until now, FHQ has made the point that this would advantage the Ron Paul campaign -- the campaign with the seemingly most committed supporters in the race.⁴ But let me flesh that point out a bit and offer a hypothesis. First, a question: Who are Rick Santorum voters at these caucuses? There are a few different ways of thinking about this:

1. They are sincere Santorum voters.
2. They are sincere not Romney voters, but not necessarily committed to Santorum.
3. They are Democrats attempting to prolong the Republican nomination process.

I'll dismiss the third option for now, as it is only going to affect things -- at the most -- at the margins. Plus the only clear evidence -- or actually push from the Santorum campaign -- of Democratic support has been in Michigan. But the other two types of Santorum voters are worth looking at in more detail. Are Santorum voters, then, true Santorum supporters or just committed to casting a protest vote against Romney?

The hypothesis: True Santorum supporters are more likely to stick it out through the whole delegate selection process at the precinct-level meeting, but "not Romney" Santorum voters are more likely to be satisfied with simply casting a not Romney vote in the non-binding straw poll.

The truth of the matter is that we don't know the answer to this question. And yes, I know, the Santorum folks are going to come after me on this one. But I don't think this is something that we can dismiss as a factor. The fact is that we simply don't know and that complicates even further our ability to project much of anything about the nature of the eventual allocation of delegates in these caucus states.

Until such time that someone/some outlet with the resources -- FHQ does not have them. -- can talk to all of the county, district or state convention delegates in these states and get an accurate feel for their candidate preferences, these delegates that the AP, New York Times and others are allocating to Paul, Romney or Santorum are fantasy delegates.⁵

--
Post script: Now, to head off the likely Santorum backlash from this, FHQ will wholeheartedly admit that none of this is static; that either these Santorum voters are sincere Santorum voters or not Romney voters or that the line between those two groups is well-defined and consistent across states. It isn't. Again, it is an unknown. For one thing, raising $9 million in a short month is indicative of some level of enthusiasm for the Santorum candidacy. So before my good Santorum friends return the volley with stories of enthusiasm and committed support (and with claims that those levels can grow over time), please note that FHQ is in no way dismissing the possibility that that level of support exists or can grow over time. I am only attempting to point out that there is a discrepancy here driven by the fact that we don't have a firm answer to the above question. Nothing more, nothing less.

--
¹ Yeah, I know. That description is redundantly redundant. ...but allow me to emphasize my point.

² It gets supporters' hopes up and forces them to counterintuitively throw, of all delegate counts, the New York Times' delegate count at FHQ as evidence of the "true" count.

³ FHQ has among the most conservative delegate counts out there, but the RNC's is by far the most conservative. They are not, as of yet, counting any automatic delegates who have endorsed a candidate already. For states that have held contests and in which the automatic delegates are not bound by the results of the primary or caucus, the RNC is considering those automatic delegates as unbound. That is consistent with the RNC delegate selection rules which call for those delegates to be unbound unless otherwise bound according to state party rules.

⁴ Even David Frum is starting to look into the Paul delegate strategy.

⁵ Newt Gingrich has as of yet been unable to cross the threshold (voter percentage necessary) to receive any delegates in most of these states. The former speaker's delegate total is fairly consistent across counts. That is because his delegates are all primary delegates from states with clearly defined rules on binding delegates.

Recent Posts:
Texas Primary Set for May 29

On the Shifting/Not Shifting of Michigan Delegate Allocation Rules

Race to 1144: Arizona Primary

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Texas Primary Set for May 29

And the court said let there be a May 29 primary in Texas.

And there was a May 29 primary scheduled, and all was right with the world. Well, calendar world, anyway. So here we are two months into 2012 and we finally, just maybe, have a completed presidential primary calendar. No, not for 2016; for 2012.

Feeble attempts at humor aside, both Texas state parties have set their delegate selection rules in place -- Texas Republicans will still have a proportional allocation system. -- and the courts have given the go-ahead for a May 29 primary. That places Texas all by itself on the third to last occupied week of the primary calendar; just ahead of the California and New Jersey primaries on June 5 and four weeks ahead of the Utah primary on June 26.

This moves the Texas Republican primary and its 155 delegates -- over 10% of the 1144 needed to win the nomination -- back from the March 6 date the contest started on and back even further from the April 3 date the courts were forced to move the primary from due to the continued redistricting dispute in the state. With a tentative map and delegate selection rules set, the primary got the green light.

Follow the Texas calendar movement throughout the last few months by clicking on the Texas label.

Recent Posts:
On the Shifting/Not Shifting of Michigan Delegate Allocation Rules

Race to 1144: Arizona Primary

Idaho House Bill to Eliminate Presidential Primary Passes State Senate

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

On the Shifting/Not Shifting of Michigan Delegate Allocation Rules

Allow FHQ a to make a few comments on the news today that the Michigan Republican Party would allocate its two at-large delegates to Mitt Romney -- winner-take-all -- instead of splitting them proportionally between the former Massachusetts governor and Rick Santorum.

Look, the optics of this are bad. Rightly or wrongly, the decision by the Michigan Republican Party to allocate its two at-large delegates winner-take-all will get lumped in with the "one winner, then another" Iowa caucuses, the "let's count this precinct, but not this one" Maine caucuses and the painfully slow Nevada vote tabulation. They are all matters that make the state parties look incompetent and/or as if the process is or was being "pushed" toward a specific outcome. At its best, this is just a series of bad coincidences, but at its worst it gives the perception that the process is rigged. And that's dangerous territory. It is that very type of thing that can very quickly push this from a competitive race to a divisive one, pitting factions of the party against each other. Again, can. When the argument is one candidate or another, that's one thing. But if the argument is one candidate or another and there's an element of unfairness, it has a way a elevating the tension within a political party at all levels.

And it isn't like this is a foreign concept. The Democratic nomination race in 2008 was rife with this vein of discussion. There was a reason the Democratic Change Commission reexamined the caucus rules in 2009-10 and attempted to develop a uniform "best practices" for how to conduct caucuses. It was because the Clinton campaign cried foul that the Obama campaign was exploiting -- well within the rules -- the rules structure in caucus states to win more delegates. That the Obama campaign could turnout enough supporters in ruby red Idaho, for instance, and run up the score -- both in votes and how those votes translated to and rounded up to delegates -- while Clinton focused on big delegate prizes like California which yielded little in the way of anything resembling a big delegate margin was eye-opening.

...but it was within the rules.

And to be clear, what happened in Iowa was within the rules. The Republican Party of Iowa just messed up in calling it for Mitt Romney. What happened in Nevada was within the rules. Sure, it took Nevada Republicans an eternity to count a relatively small number of votes, but as FHQ argued at the time, after Iowa, wouldn't you -- as a party -- rather be safe than sorry. What happened in Maine was within the rules. The party defined when caucuses should be held and that if you were late and outside of that window, the votes would not be counted in the non-binding straw poll. The Maine Republican Party stuck to that.

But this Michigan situation is different. Since the party and its delegation to the Tampa convention were penalized for holding the primary too early, the party had to revise its method of allocation to meet the reduced number of total delegates. That meant, as FHQ has explained, that each of the fourteen congressional districts were apportioned two delegates and that the remaining two delegates out of the 30 total delegates (after the penalty) were at-large. The regular rules -- unpenalized -- called for the congressional district delegates to be allocated winner-take-all based on the vote in each of the congressional districts. The plan the MIGOP adopted initially -- again, pre-penalty -- was to allocate at-large delegates proportionally to candidates who received over 15% of the statewide vote. But when the  Michigan Republican Party State Committee met on February 4, they proposed, voted on and adopted a set of delegate allocation rules with language implying a winner-take-all allocation of those two at-large delegates.

Well, there you go. It is winner-take-all.

It is winner-take-all according to the language of the rule.¹ But that is not apparently what the party was telling news organizations, informing the campaigns about in memorandum form or what the communications director told me. I can only relate to you what Mr. Frendewey told me when I called to clarify the allocation method for these two delegates. I approached the party with a simple question: Given that the RNC rules require and that the plan crafted by the Michigan Republican Party (and signed off on by the RNC) a proportional allocation of those at-large delegates, are those two delegates actually winner-take-all? Can they be proportional? Again, the February 4 rule is pretty clear. It more than implies the allocation method is winner-take-all. There is no mention of proportionality anywhere in the small list of five rules, but the response I got was that a proportional allocation of those two delegates was possible if the vote was close enough.

The vote on February 28 was close enough. For Mitt Romney to have gotten both delegates he would have had to have won over 75% of the statewide vote for the delegate allocation to round up to two delegates and have Santorum's allocation -- assuming his vote was over 25% -- round down to zero delegates. That was not how the statewide vote looked Tuesday night, though.

There is more than enough evidence to suggest that the party voted on and passed a winner-take-all plan for the at-large delegates but told enough outside parties that it was proportional -- or in my conversation with them, could be proportional -- that it appears at the very least misleading if not intentionally so. FHQ is not suggesting that there was any intent to mislead, but the Michigan Republican Party has some explaining to do beyond just saying it messed up in a memo.

Again, this is different than what has happened elsewhere, but at least in Iowa, Nevada and Maine, the parties laid out the rules and stuck to them. The Michigan Republican Party may have too, but they will have to find a way to reconcile the fact that the rule was written one way and several people told enough folks outside of the party that the actual allocation was different from that rule.

And all of this over one delegate.

--
¹ The rule in question: "The statewide winner will receive two delegates (three, if you’re counting all the seated delegates)."


Recent Posts:
Race to 1144: Arizona Primary

Idaho House Bill to Eliminate Presidential Primary Passes State Senate

Romney is the Winner in Wyoming Straw Poll

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Race to 1144: Arizona Primary

Source:
Contest Delegates (via contest results and rules, and RNC)
Automatic Delegates (Democratic Convention Watch)

Delegate breakdown (post-Arizona primary):
Romney: 120 delegates (New Hampshire: 7, South Carolina: 2, Florida: 50, Nevada: 14, Arizona: 29, Automatic: 18)
Gingrich: 32 delegates (South Carolina: 23, Nevada: 6, Automatic: 3)
Paul: 8 delegates (New Hampshire: 3, Nevada: 5)¹
Santorum: 4 delegates (Nevada: 3, Automatic: 1)
Unbound: 126 delegates (Iowa: 25, Colorado: 33, Minnesota: 37, Maine: 21 Automatic: 8, Huntsman: 2)

--
In the same way that Rick Santorum was able to win every county in the beauty contest primary in Missouri on February 7, Mitt Romney accomplished the same feat with 29 delegates on the line Tuesday night in Arizona. Romney scored a decisive victory on the same scale as his victory in similarly winner-take-all Florida at the end of January. The additional delegate boost from the Grand Canyon state pushes the former Massachusetts governor's delegate margin to level approaching one hundred delegates.² In that sense -- counting Michigan or not -- Mitt Romney ever so slightly padded his delegate lead on February 28.

A few other notes:

• The unbound delegate total did not -- and will not when Michigan is added into the mix -- change because of what happened on Tuesday. Due to the penalties both Michigan and Arizona incurred for holding delegate selection events at odds with the RNC rules on primary/caucus timing, both states not only lost half of their delegations but were stripped of their automatic delegates in the process. 
• When will we hear about a challenge to the winner-take-all allocation of the Arizona delegates? It has been all quiet on the western front to this point. A strictly proportional allocation of Arizona's delegates would have netted Romney 15 delegates, Santorum 9 delegates and Gingrich  the remaining 5 delegates, assuming a 15% threshold for winning delegates. 
• Of course, if the delegate total would have been split into a proportional allocation of at-large delegates and a winner-take-all allocation of congressional district delegates (by congressional district vote), Romney likely would have taken 24 delegates, Santorum 3 and Gingrich 2. That's based on Romney winning all nine congressional districts and taking approximately half of the at-large, statewide delegates (assuming a 15% threshold for winning any delegates). The most likely plan would have largely resembled the Michigan plan. With two delegates allocated to each of the nine congressional districts there would have been 18 congressional district delegates and 11 at-large delegates. Again, this is a hypothetical plan that could be used in the event of a successful challenge to the Arizona delegate allocation plan.
• This is great illustration of how different the two parties conceptions on proportional can be when implemented. The former scenario with a 15% threshold yields a fairly mathematically proportional allocation. But the latter, congressional district plan is not nearly so proportional. In the case of a sweeping victory like what Romney enjoyed in Arizona or Gingrich in South Carolina, such a method of allocation will advantage the winner in the zero-sum game of delegate allocation. 

--

--
¹ Iowa Republican Party Chairman Spiker was a part of the Paul campaign in Iowa and resigned his position upon taking up the post of party chair. While he has expressed his intent to side with whomever the Republican nominee will be, Spiker has not also directly signaled any neutrality in the race. The door is open for his support of Paul at a potential contested convention. While FHQ does not include Spiker in Paul's delegate total, it is however necessary to make note of the possible addition of one delegate that would bring the Texas congressman's total to nine.

² Though the Michigan vote and thus delegate count is not official, a 15-15 delegate split in the Great Lakes state between Romney and Santorum would stretch Romney's lead to over one hundred delegates. FHQ will not add Michigan to the total until the vote tabulation is complete there. That is, assuming there is no controversy over the Michigan delegate allocation, it will be split 15-15.


Recent Posts:
Idaho House Bill to Eliminate Presidential Primary Passes State Senate

Romney is the Winner in Wyoming Straw Poll

Santorum Inches Closer in Wyoming Straw Poll

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Idaho House Bill to Eliminate Presidential Primary Passes State Senate

Idaho House bill H 391 has passed the state Senate, and as of yesterday, has moved on to Governor Butch Otter (R) for his consideration. The bill, in light of the Idaho Republican Party decision late last year to abandon the primary in favor of an earlier caucus for the purpose of allocating delegates, eliminates the presidential primary line from the May primary ballot. Idaho Democrats have traditionally utilized a caucus process separate from the primary and with the Republican Party following suit for 2012, the presidential preference portion of the ballot became superfluous (especially considering it would fall well after the delegate selection process began in both parties).

The bill carries no limited financial savings and is more of a technical redefinition of the election laws that detail the nomination process in the Gem state. The expectation is that the bill will be signed, but the two chambers of the legislature cast decidedly different votes on the measure; sending mixed signals. The House passed the legislation by a nearly 5:1 margin while the Senate required a tie-breaking vote from the president of the Senate for it to pass there.

Recent Posts:
Romney is the Winner in Wyoming Straw Poll

Santorum Inches Closer in Wyoming Straw Poll

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Georgia

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Romney is the Winner in Wyoming Straw Poll

Mitt Romney has won the Wyoming Republican Party precinct caucuses straw poll. The former Massachusetts governor placed second to Ron Paul in the final precinct/county vote in Sweetwater County. But the dirty little secret of the Wyoming delegate selection process is that while the straw poll had to add the numbers from Sweetwater to the tabulation, the set up for the delegate allocation at the county conventions next week was over last night. That is because Sweetwater County is one of the eleven counties that will only select an alternate delegate to attend the national convention from the county convention. Now, to be sure, what happened at the precinct caucuses this evening will still have an impact on the selection of at-large delegates from the April state convention, but it will be as part of the total gathering at the state convention.

The more important question is what can we glean from the results of the caucuses that will select delegates -- not alternates -- to the national convention next week. As long time FHQ reader, Scott, pointed out on Twitter to me this morning (and before I had a chance to look myself, too!), out of the 12 counties, Romney won the straw poll in five, Santorum in four others and Paul took the remaining three.  Will that be how those 12 delegates are allocated next week at the county conventions? My strong hunch is that it will be, but as is the case in many of the caucus states thus far, there is nothing to suggest that Romney pushed more precinct-to-county level delegates through than Santorum, then Paul, then Gingrich. Much will depend on how that vote -- the county convention delegate vote -- went rather than the snapshot the straw poll provides.

[To review the delegate selection rules the Wyoming Republican Party is using click here.]


Source: Wyoming Republican Party

Recent Posts:
Santorum Inches Closer in Wyoming Straw Poll

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Georgia

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Alaska

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Santorum Inches Closer in Wyoming Straw Poll

With just one final county left to hold precinct caucuses (Sweetwater County later today), Rick Santorum has slightly closed the gap on Mitt Romney in the Wyoming precinct caucuses straw poll. The former Pennsylvania senator shaved about 40 votes off of Romney's 170 lead in the latest round of votes in Converse, Park and Platte Counties on Tuesday evening. That pulls Romney under 40% with Santorum closing in on a third of the overall vote. Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich lag behind in the count with 20% and 8% of the straw poll, respectively (click on the most recent date at the bottom of the spreadsheet for the latest total).


Source: Wyoming Republican Party
[Click date for latest total]


Again, this is all part of a non-binding straw poll that leads up to the county conventions beginning on Super Tuesday; a step in the process where 12 delegates to the national convention.


Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Georgia

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Alaska

Romney Still Ahead in Wyoming Precinct Caucus Straw Poll Count

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Georgia

This is the sixteenth in a multipart series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation by state.¹ The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2012 -- especially relative to 2008 -- in order to gauge the impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. As FHQ has argued in the past, this has often been cast as a black and white change. That the RNC has winner-take-all rules and the Democrats have proportional rules. Beyond that, the changes have been wrongly interpreted in a great many cases as having made a 180º change from straight winner-take-all to straight proportional rules in all pre-April 1 primary and caucus states. That is not the case. 

The new requirement has been adopted in a number of different ways across the states. Some have moved to a conditional system where winner-take-all allocation is dependent upon one candidate receiving 50% or more of the vote and others have responded by making just the usually small sliver of a state's delegate apportionment from the national party -- at-large delegates -- proportional as mandated by the party. Those are just two examples. There are other variations in between that also allow state parties to comply with the rules. FHQ has long argued that the effect of this change would be to lengthen the process. However, the extent of the changes from four years ago is not as great as has been interpreted and points to the spacing of the 2012 primary calendar -- and how that interacts with the ongoing campaign -- being a much larger factor in the accumulation of delegates (Again, especially relative to the 2008 calendar).

For links to the other states' plans see the Republican Delegate Selection Plans by State section in the left sidebar under the calendar.


GEORGIA

Buckle up, folks. Alaska was in many ways the easiest Super Tuesday contest to describe. Many of the rest of the states are where we will finally get a glimpse at how various states have adapted to the oft-discussed Republican proportionality requirement. And folks, it ain't pretty. [Well, I suppose it is plenty "pretty" to someone who can appreciate the vagaries of delegate selection rules. Guilty.]

What better place to start the magical mystery tour through the Super Tuesday states (with crazy rules) than in Georgia, the home of the county unit system. Now, that is perhaps an unfair comparison, but the Georgia Republican Party response to the RNC call for "proportionality" for contests prior to April 1 is no less strangely constructed. [And no, for the record, FHQ is not implying or suggesting that there is anything nefarious about the Georgia delegate allocation plan.] The Georgia Republican Party essentially took what was a South Carolina-like plan (one the party has traditionally utilized) -- winner-take-all by congressional district and statewide -- and turned it into something else. Recall that the quickest and easiest responses to the new RNC mandate were to either 1) make the statewide, at-large delegates proportional or 2) make the overall allocation conditional on a candidate receiving a majority of the vote statewide (winner-take-all if so, proportional if not). Georgia did the former, but added an additional layer by making the congressional district delegates roughly "proportional".

That latter step was superfluous if compliance with the national party rules was the intent. As several state plans have already demonstrated, state parties can continue to allocate congressional district delegates winner-take-all based on the vote in each congressional district. That is fully within the letter of the law. Georgia Republicans, however, will allocated two [2] delegates to the winner of a congressional district and one [1] delegate to the runner up. Should one candidate surpass the majority threshold within the district that candidate will be allocated the full three [3] delegates apportioned to all congressional districts nationwide from the RNC. The potential, then exists for there to be a straight winner-take-all allocation of congressional district delegates so long as a candidate or candidates win majorities in each of the 14 Georgia congressional districts.

The statewide allocation of at-large delegates is slightly more straightforward. It will be proportional for all candidates receiving at least 20% of the vote statewide. That is the highest threshold for receiving any delegates as the RNC will allow.

Here's the delegate breakdown: Georgia has...

• 76 total delegates
• 31 at-large delegates
• 42 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

The at-large and congressional district delegates will be allocated as described above. As for the automatic delegates, the state party chair, , was elected last year, but the national committeeman and national committeewoman will be elected at the 2012 state convention in May.² That said, none of the three are free agents like many automatic delegates are elsewhere across the country. The Georgia Republican Party considers the automatic delegates in the Peach state at-large and they are allocated to the top vote-getter in the primary (statewide). Those automatic delegates are the only directly winner-take-all delegates within the plan with no strings (thresholds) attached.

Georgia, then, has 76 bound delegates heading to the Republican National Convention in Tampa in August.

--
¹ FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories and Washington, DC.

² See Georgia Republican Rule 7:
Georgia Republican Party Rules (adopted Sept. 2011)

Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Alaska

Romney Still Ahead in Wyoming Precinct Caucus Straw Poll Count

Patterns in the Republican Primaries?

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Alaska

This is the fifteenth in a multipart series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation by state.¹ The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2012 -- especially relative to 2008 -- in order to gauge the impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. As FHQ has argued in the past, this has often been cast as a black and white change. That the RNC has winner-take-all rules and the Democrats have proportional rules. Beyond that, the changes have been wrongly interpreted in a great many cases as having made a 180º change from straight winner-take-all to straight proportional rules in all pre-April 1 primary and caucus states. That is not the case. 

The new requirement has been adopted in a number of different ways across the states. Some have moved to a conditional system where winner-take-all allocation is dependent upon one candidate receiving 50% or more of the vote and others have responded by making just the usually small sliver of a state's delegate apportionment from the national party -- at-large delegates -- proportional as mandated by the party. Those are just two examples. There are other variations in between that also allow state parties to comply with the rules. FHQ has long argued that the effect of this change would be to lengthen the process. However, the extent of the changes from four years ago is not as great as has been interpreted and points to the spacing of the 2012 primary calendar -- and how that interacts with the ongoing campaign -- being a much larger factor in the accumulation of delegates (Again, especially relative to the 2008 calendar).

For links to the other states' plans see the Republican Delegate Selection Plans by State section in the left sidebar under the calendar.


ALASKA

Well, Alaska is another Republican caucus state, so let's dust off the old "it's like Iowa" line and move on, shall we?

Not so fast.

The delegate allocation process in Alaska, as it turns out, is more like Nevada than Iowa or most of the other caucus states to have held meetings thus far. Yes, that's right. Alaska is another one of those rare, binding caucus states. And just like Nevada, the Alaska process binds its delegates proportionally based on the results of the district conventions to take place between Super Tuesday, March 6 and March 24.²

As the Alaska Republican Party states:

All registered Alaska Republicans are invited to cast their vote for their preferred candidate.  The Presidential Preference Poll vote binds the 24 Alaskan National Convention Delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa, FL from August 27-30. 

The primary goal of the PPP is to develop and run an open, reasonably accessible, fair, valid, logistically pragmatic and secure process which will direct the Alaska Republican Party (ARP) delegates to the Republican National Convention to vote for their Republican candidate(s) of choice for the Presidency of the United States.

Lest this discussion be misleading, allow FHQ to dive into the actual delegate allocation. As is the case in Wyoming, there is only one congressional district in Alaska, and as such the term "district conventions" does not obviously refer to the lone Alaskan congressional district. Instead, the district conventions are a way of subdividing the state into smaller units for the purpose of allocating delegates with a nod toward regional -- intra-Alaska -- and population representativeness. The subdivision of choice is the Alaska state House district (as opposed to the county in Wyoming). Each of the 40 state House districts will hold at least one meeting on March 6, though several will hold multiple meetings throughout the district.

The total statewide vote in the Presidential Preference Poll will determine the way in which Alaska's delegates will be allocated. The breakdown: Alaska has...

• 27 total delegates
• 21 at-large delegates
• 3 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

The three automatic delegates from the Last Frontier are free agents as most of the automatic delegates are nationwide. And while they can choose whomever they please, it should be noted that a state party chairperson, the national committeeman and the national committeewoman will all be elected at the April 26-28 state convention (see Article V, Section 14 of the Alaska Republican Party rules). Those delegates will not be known until then. The 24 remaining delegates, however, are the delegates that will be proportionally allocated based on the total statewide House district convention vote on March 6.

--
¹ FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories and Washington, DC.

² Yes, this is news to FHQ as well. When I spoke with Alaska Republican Party Chairman Randy Ruedrich back in the fall, I was told that all of the conventions would take place on March 6. But apparently the process will stretch on throughout the month of March. The Alaska Republican Party page devoted to the delegate selection process lists both March 6 and March 6-26 as dates on which the district conventions will occur. It is not clear whether convention attendees will be asked to come to a presidential preference poll vote on March 6 only to return at a later date for the remaining business or if what will take place will be more akin to the processes in Maine or Wyoming. The former does not jibe well with the "open, reasonably accessible, fair, valid, logistically pragmatic and secure" process referred to above. So we are likely talking about more of a Maine/Wyoming situation; a process that will not be complete until March 24.


Recent Posts:
Romney Still Ahead in Wyoming Precinct Caucus Straw Poll Count

Patterns in the Republican Primaries?

On the Nature of 2012 RNC Rules Changes

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Romney Still Ahead in Wyoming Precinct Caucus Straw Poll Count

FHQ will not spend too much time discussing the addition of 20 total votes from Niobrara County, Wyoming (click on the most recent date at the bottom of the spreadsheet for the latest total), but needless to say those votes did not alter the general pattern that has developed across counties thus far in the Equality state. Mitt Romney leads and even though he only captured three votes out of twenty in a county that Ron Paul won, it was still a better showing than the goose egg Rick Santorum put up there. The former Massachusetts governor still retains a better than 170 vote advantage with just a handful of counties yet to vote.

There are three more counties to hold their precinct caucuses and straw poll vote and one other (Converse County) where the caucuses that started on Monday will wrap up tonight. The straw poll/precinct caucus portion of the process will be complete on Wednesday.


Source: Wyoming Republican Party
[Click date for latest total]

For more on Wyoming see here and here.

Recent Posts:
Patterns in the Republican Primaries?

On the Nature of 2012 RNC Rules Changes

Romney Leading in Wyoming Precinct Caucus Votes

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.