Iowa GOP considers new rule for close caucuses

Jennifer Jacobs of the Des Moines Register has the story.

--
A couple of tidbits from the piece:

"To prevent future criticism of the Iowa caucuses, state Republican party officials will consider this rule: If there’s a difference of 1 percent or less between the top two vote-getters, they will declare the race too close to call that night.  

"That would then trigger a 72-hour deadline for the certification process, the party’s system of double-checking the vote totals. Currently, the party gives itself about two weeks to wrap up certification."

...and...

"[Iowa] Republicans are worried that the RNC will strip Iowa of its first-in-the nation voting status if the caucus system here suffers too many black eyes." 

I get this latter sentiment, but I don't. On the one hand, both parties in Iowa should probably always be on guard; especially after the snafu this past January. That said, there was absolutely no indication -- not in a formal "introducing an amendment/resolution" sort of way (certainly nothing that was adopted) -- that stripping Iowa (or New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina) of its position at the RNC meeting in Scottsdale last week was anywhere close to a consensus position among the RNC members.¹

--
¹ As Zeke Miller of Buzz Feed tweeted from Scottsdale:

"Almost no interest at all in changing the "carve-out" that allows IA/NH/SC/NV to go first at the RNC Rules Committee meeting"

Recent Posts:
Pair of Missouri Bills Would Shift Future Presidential Primaries Back to April

House-Passed Bill in Virginia to Consolidate Primaries in Presidential Election Years to Be Considered in 2013 in State Senate

Race to 1144: Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Primary

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

Pair of Missouri Bills Would Shift Future Presidential Primaries Back to April

If you followed the saga that was the Missouri state government effort to move the Show Me state presidential primary into compliance with national party delegate selection rules last year, you are probably already more than ready to dismiss this and move.¹ [FHQ doesn't know that it blames you.] Yet, here the legislature is again -- one year later -- examining a couple of bills that would consolidate the February presidential primary with the April general municipal primaries, moving the former back to coincide with the latter.

Now, the general assembly faced a similar situation during 2011. A bill to consolidate the presidential primary with the congressional primaries in June -- moving the former from February and the latter from August -- was introduced and referred to committee but died there as other bills focused on moving the presidential primary to March took precedence.  Again, as was the case with the 2012 bill in Virginia, the prime motivating factor in introducing these bills -- HB 1962, HB 1981 -- is budgetary (...though sadly there is no information on the fiscal impact for either).²

Of course, no Missouri post would be complete without some sort of legislative roadblock. Even if legislators were/are eager to pass this legislation, they are running out of time in the second of a two session term. The General Assembly is set to adjourn in May and the deadline for bills to have emerged from committee in the chamber opposite the one where it was introduced was April 12 -- the same date that both of these bills were referred to committee. [Granted, this is an appropriations bill of sorts since it deals with a matter that would seemingly reduce the costs of elections. The deadline for those bills to have passed -- as in the next stop is the governor's desk -- is May 11.] The fact that this is the second of two legislative session is important because the bills will not be able to carry over to the next session (not that they can be in Missouri anyway).

In other words, don't expect the Missouri primary to be moved in 2012 with 2016 in mind. It will be 2015 before any of this is likely relevant again. But flag this post and refer back to it when we get there. It may serve as the nexus of another strange journey through the Missouri General Assembly.

--
¹ For more click on the Missouri label and scroll (and scroll) through the backlog of Missouri posts from 2011. It's a long and winding road.

² Both bills were introduced by Republicans in the Republican-controlled Missouri House. That matters in the future depending on who wins the general election in the fall. If Obama wins reelection, then both parties will have active nomination races in 2016 and Republicans (and Democrats) in the legislature may be motivated to do something about the scheduling of the presidential primary (depending on the rules and penalties from the national parties). However, if Romney wins in November and the Missouri legislature remains in Republican control, then nothing may happen with the primary. Republicans won't necessarily be motivated to tinker with the date of the presidential primary if they don't have a dog in the fight.

Recent Posts:
House-Passed Bill in Virginia to Consolidate Primaries in Presidential Election Years to Be Considered in 2013 in State Senate

Race to 1144: Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Primary

A Few Notes on the RNC Meeting and the 2016 Rules

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

House-Passed Bill in Virginia to Consolidate Primaries in Presidential Election Years to Be Considered in 2013 in State Senate

File this one under "bills that were active in 2012 and may eventually have an impact on 2016". [Were being the operative word.]

The Virginia General Assembly considered during its 2012 legislative session -- back in January and February -- a bill to consolidate its presidential primary and the primaries for state and local offices. The legislation -- HB 55 -- would, for the time being, keep the presidential primary on the first Tuesday in March and primaries for state and local offices in midterm years on the second Tuesday in June. However, the bill would move the presidential year primaries for state and local offices to coincide with the presidential primary.¹ The impact statement indicates that the measure would not save the state any substantial amount from a budgetary perspective but would have the "potential" to aid local governments in their efforts in conducting the elections.

HB 55 passed the state House by a nearly 3:1 margin in January and was then referred to the state Senate. While the 2012 session adjourned, the bill will be carried over to the 2013 session where it will then be considered by the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections.

--
The true impact of this is negligible in terms of the presidential primary and Virginia's place on the 2016 presidential primary calendar, but it should be noted that this does potentially alter -- assuming the HB 55 passes and is signed into law in 2013 -- the calculus for those candidates seeking nomination to either chamber of Congress or local offices. What I mean by that is that with the move to hold those primaries concurrently with the presidential primary comes a relative increase in the level of turnout for the primaries for offices other than president. Those candidates who traditionally thrive in low turnout environments will have to adjust to a higher turnout setting. This is more of an issue for those down-ballot races that will also have to deal with ballot roll off anyway.

File this one away though. It is more important in that it fits with another emerging characteristic of primary movement in the 2012 cycle: budgetary constraints of conducting elections. This fits in nicely with other states that consolidated primaries for 2012: Alabama, Arkansas, California, New Jersey and Utah (Republicans).

--
¹ Virginia election law refers to these primaries as the "primaries for the nomination of candidates for offices to be voted on at the general election date in November". These are primaries more for local offices than state offices. Most of the latter are voted on and nominated in odd year elections. However, the list of offices that would have their primaries shifted up to and earlier date does include members of the Virginia congressional delegation -- both US House and Senate.

Recent Posts:
Race to 1144: Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Primary

A Few Notes on the RNC Meeting and the 2016 Rules

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Pennsylvania

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

Race to 1144: Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Primary

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

Delegate breakdown (post-CT, DE, NY, PA & RI primaries):


Changes since Minnesota and Missouri district conventions (4/21/12):

• Romney: +150 delegates (New York: +92, Connecticut: +25, Delaware: +17, Rhode Island: +12, Pennsylvania: +3, Virgin Islands: +1)
• Santorum: +/- 0 delegates 
• Paul: +4 delegates (Rhode Island: +4)
• Gingrich: +/- 0 delegates 

Notes:
1) It should be noted that the delegates are difficult to classify in both Nevada and Vermont as both sets of automatic delegates are bound and proportionally allocated with either all of the delegates (Nevada) or with the at-large delegates (Vermont). Those six delegates are in the bound/pledged category in the spreadsheet above but are considered "contest delegates" in the bar chart at the top. It would not be surprising to see those six delegates among those who signed pledges to Romney at the RNC meeting in Scottsdale this past week when and if that list is made public.

2) Mitt Romney swept the delegates in New York (statewide and across all 29 congressional districts), Connecticut (statewide and across all 5 congressional districts) and Delaware.

3) In Rhode Island, Mitt Romney won 63% of the vote and 75% of the total, non-automatic delegates at stake. Ron Paul won 24% of the vote and qualified for delegates by surpassing the 15% threshold for receiving delegates. That netted the Texas congressman 4 delegates; 25% of the total, non-automatic delegates.

4) Pennsylvania is a bit tricky. Though delegates are unbound, some have expressed a presidential preference. The Romney site points to previous endorsements from three delegates directly elected in the primary on Tuesday (see Gerlach, Shuster and English). Additionally, the Ron Paul site has an official list of Pennsylvania delegates that identifies five of the 59 delegates elected on Tuesday are aligned with Paul. The Newt Gingrich site has no such endorsements. However, Gingrich-related sites do have lists of delegates aligned with those candidates. There is also another fabulous thread on another conservative site that breaks this down in even greater detail. The numbers there do jibe well with the Romney, Paul and Gingrich site endorsements. That count -- which FHQ will wait until it is independently verified -- would yield Romney 26 delegates (which counts the four in the spread sheet above), Paul 5, Gingrich 3 and Santorum 2 (or 3). Another 12 or 13 delegates are uncommitted while 10 more are county party-endorsed candidates, former national delegates or alternates or elected officials. That latter group is obviously made up of more establishment/elite figures within the Pennsylvania Republican Party.

5) Mitt Romney has also picked up the lone remaining uncommitted delegate (of two originally) in the Virgin Islands, giving the former Massachusetts governor 8 total delegates in the territory. Thanks to Matthew Wilder Tanner for the link.

6) Two of the unpledged delegates coming out of the Colorado conventions a week ago are Ron Paul supporters. Don't be surprised when and if more of the other 12 unpledged Colorado delegates reveal themselves to be aligned with Paul. If anyone has links to any of these delegates revealing their preferences, please feel free to forward them to me in the comments section.

7)  The allocation of the delegates in Georgia is based on the most recent vote returns published online by the office of the Georgia Secretary of State. The allocation here differs from the RNC allocation in Georgia. The above grants Gingrich one additional delegate (which has been taken from Romney's total). Due to the way the Georgia Republican Party rounds fractional delegates, the FHQ count was off by one delegate (+Romney/-Gingrich). The congressional district count is unaffected (Gingrich 31, Romney, 8 and Santorum 3), but the way the at-large delegates are allocated to Gingrich and Romney -- the only candidates over 20% statewide -- is a bit quirky. Gingrich's portion of the vote would have entitled him to 14.6 delegates and Romney's 8.0. Under Georgia Republican rules, Gingrich is given 14 delegates and Romney 8. That leaves nine delegates unclaimed because the remaining candidates did not clear the 20% threshold. The candidate with the highest "remainder" is awarded the first delegate and the candidates over 20% trade turns until all of those delegates are allocated. Remember, Gingrich did not round up to 15 delegates (14.6), but that 0.6 gives him a larger "remainder" than Romney. The former speaker, then, is allocated the first of nine delegates. With an odd number of delegates leftover, Gingrich would have a fifth turn after Romney's fourth and that would end the allocation of those "extra" delegates. Gingrich would claim five to Romney's four. Of the 31 at-large delegates, Gingrich is allocated 19 and Romney 12. Please note that for winning the statewide vote, Gingrich is allocated the three automatic delegates. That makes the final allocation Gingrich 53, Romney 20 and Santorum 3. The RNC, though, has a different interpretation.

Recent Posts:
A Few Notes on the RNC Meeting and the 2016 Rules

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Pennsylvania

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Delaware

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

A Few Notes on the RNC Meeting and the 2016 Rules

FHQ feels somewhat compelled to weigh in -- belatedly -- on the RNC meeting in Scottsdale, Arizona last week. This is especially true in view of the fact that the members present continued the consideration of the party's 2016 delegate selection rules. Look, both Zeke Miller and James Hohmann more than adequately covered the bases on what transpired/what was on the table at the meeting, so I'll take a step back and attempt to put all of this in context.

The news out of Scottsdale was more about what didn't change than it was about what might. There were amendments raised that would have recommended essentially reverting the overarching delegate rules structure to what it was in 2008 and before:

At a meeting here of the R.N.C.’s rules committee, members debated whether to abandon the proportional voting that gave Mitt Romney’s rivals the ability to try and accumulate delegates even as they failed to win the nominating contests. 

Sue Everhart, a committee member from Georgia, proposed the change, citing concerns about the length of the competition. She suggested changes that would have allowed states to hold winner-take-all contests in 2016, potentially bringing the contest to a close more quickly. 

But several members spoke in opposition to her proposal, saying the current process gives more voters an opportunity to participate in the nomination by creating a lengthier process.

...or that would have constrained the pool of candidates for RNC chair to just RNC members:

Indiana Republican Committeeman Jim Bopp introduced an amendment, nicknamed the Steele rule by at least one member of the committee, to require future chair people to be current members of the party’s governing body — a move opposed by many loyalists of Mitt Romney, who argued it would limit a president’s flexibility in appointing a political head of the party. 

... 

The vote amendment was too close to call in a voice vote, and was rejected narrowly as members made their choices known by standing.

The take home from all of this is that nothing really changed.  Of course, nothing binding was going to come out of Scottsdale anyway -- No, not even that Romney pledge list. -- because all of this amendment proposing and voting was in the interest of formulating recommendations to be voted on by the entire convention in Tampa in August. After all it was four years ago that a similar meeting produced a recommendation for a rather sweeping revision to the Republican presidential nomination process: the Ohio Plan. That obviously did not pass muster at the St. Paul convention in 2008 and is a nice coda to what happened last week in Arizona. What happens in April doesn't always translate into fundamental change in August or September. However, big proposed changes in April can be thrown by the wayside while movement in the opposite direction -- no big changes from the RNC to a convention-led effort to change the process -- are much less likely. Presumptive nominees and the party typically sweep those sorts of things under the rug in an effort at party unity during the convention (see McCain/Ohio Plan in 2008 and Bush/Delaware Plan in 2000.).

There is a long way to go on the formation of the 2016 delegate selection rules. The RNC sent some signals last week, but that really is the extent of what Scottsdale meant. Change is unlikely unless it originates at these types of meetings, but it does not mean that it cannot or will not happen at the convention.


Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Pennsylvania

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Delaware

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Rhode Island

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Pennsylvania

This is the thirty-third 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.


PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania is by far the most -- sorry New York -- interesting state of all the April 24 primary states. That was true a few weeks ago because Pennsylvania was viewed as the most competitive of the five states with primaries today. However, with homestate former senator, Rick Santorum, out of the running, some of the air was let out of the balloon in the Keystone state. The competitiveness is gone which leaves us with delegate allocation. And even though it might be close on the surface, the intricacies of the Pennsylvania method of delegate allocation (plus the dynamics of the race) make matters in the Commonwealth more noteworthy than the delegate rigamarole in neighboring New York.

FHQ should probably start by stating that the primary and delegate allocation in Pennsylvania are not meaningless. Now, that said, the results we will all be hearing about this evening will be meaningless, but the contest itself is not. What we'll all hear tonight will be who won the primary, but who won is slightly more complicated than the topline "who got the most votes" result. That outcome is not completely inconsequential, but is not that far off from that all the same.

Why?

The answer lies in the fact that a vote for Romney or Gingrich or Paul (or Santorum or Roemer, for that matter) has absolutely no bearing on how the Pennsylvania Republican Party allocates its delegates. Like Illinois, Pennsylvania is a loophole primary: Voters will cast a ballot for a presidential candidate of their choice, but the vote of consequence is the direct vote(s) for delegates.  Unlike Illinois, the candidates to which the delegate candidates are aligned are not listed alongside those delegate candidates on the ballot.² The result is that Pennsylvania Republican primary voters are essentially casting a blind vote. Now, what typically happens in these loophole primaries -- whether in Pennsylvania or Illinois -- is that the establishment candidate is able to garner the most support of known political quantities either statewide or within a district. Voters tend to gravitate toward those folks: someone they know in a political capacity versus someone they don't know.

But in Pennsylvania in 2012 the apple cart has to some extent been overturned. [Fine. Jostled, perhaps?] No, Rick Santorum did not corner the market in his home state. It was far from locked down. What that leaves us with is a presumptive nominee who was organizing Pennsylvania delegates in 2011 versus an organized, albeit agenda-seeking candidate and Newt Gingrich. Now, FHQ would immediately discount Gingrich's chances, but in a low turnout environment with a presumptive nominee some within the Republican Party are lukewarm toward (and that is still being generous), all bets are not necessarily off.

Is FHQ saying that you should expect a Ron Paul upset this evening in Pennsylvania? No, I'm not. First of all, it will probably take a bit of time for the dust to settle (...and for some to realize that the primary "winner" is maybe not the delegate winner). But I will urge you to do a couple of test Google searches. Ah heck, I'll do them for you:

1. Who are Romney delegates in Pennsylvania
2. Who are Ron Paul delegates in Pennsylvania

If you were a casual voter who wanted to figure out who the delegates were for each of the candidates -- and perhaps that is a stretch (Who are those voters?) -- you would have a much easier time coming up with the Ron Paul list of delegates than the Mitt Romney list of delegates. That yields a competition that pits name recognition (Romney) against organization (Paul). Typically -- historically -- the two would overlap or the latter would be unnecessary in a late and less-than-competitive primary where a presumptive nominee has been identified and all or most other candidates have dropped out of the race. In this instance, though, with turnout looking light at best, we may have a fairly decent test case of name recognition against organization.³

You may see folks late to the Pennsylvania coverage talking about how the Pennsylvania Republican delegates are unbound/uncommitted or, gulp, unpledged⁴ -- and they are -- but that glosses over the fact that while the linkage between candidates and delegates are unknown or less well known on the ballot, the delegates are more often than not aligned with one candidate or another and are likely to stick with their chosen candidate if elected. But as is the case with any unbound delegate, they are free to change their mind or switch allegiances at any time.

--
Pennsylvania delegate breakdown:

• 72 total delegates
• 15 at-large delegates
• 54 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

At-large allocation: The fifteen at-large delegates are elected at the June 23 state committee meeting. The primary has no bearing on how these delegates are allocated.

Congressional district allocation: The allocation described above refers to the direct election/allocation of the 54 congressional district delegates (three or four delegates in each of Pennsylvania's 18 congressional districts). UPDATE (4/24/12, 3:30p): As a point of clarification (as prompted by Joe Lenski), it should be noted that there are five congressional districts electing four delegates and 13 districts electing three delegates. Unlike Illinois, there was/has been no attempt made at squaring the overall in-state total of congressional district delegates to the number of delegates apportioned to the state by the RNC (based on the three delegates per district formula) in Pennsylvania. So whereas the Illinois Republican Party had a two delegate district for every four delegate district, there is no such balance -- averaging to three delegates per district -- in Pennsylvania. What that means is that there are five extra congressional district delegates beyond the RNC apportionment. That does not mean that Pennsylvania has 77 instead of 72 total delegates. It means, presumably, that Pennsylvania has 10 instead of 15 at-large delegates who will be selected at the June state committee meeting. The bottom line here is that there is a distinction to be made in Pennsylvania between the classification of the RNC-apportioned delegates and how the Pennsylvania Republican Party decides to both classify and allocate them (see Wyoming for another example of this).

Automatic delegate allocation: The three automatic delegates are free to endorse/pledge themselves to any candidate of their choosing. Pennsylvania Republican National Committeeman Rober Asher has already endorsed Mitt Romney.

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

² See one such sample ballot from Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. Those two sections of the ballot -- presidential nomination candidate and delegate/alternate delegate are not even together. That is true in other counties as well.

³ It should be noted that getting the support of well-known folks as delegates is an act of organization, but in the case above organization refers to turning people out to cast well-informed (read: know who the delegates are for their candidate) to vote.

⁴ On the whole most of these delegates on the Pennsylvania primary ballot are pledged to a particular candidate. There may be some who are unpledged, but the best descriptor for Pennsylvania delegates is uncommitted. They are running uncommitted as they are not directly identified as aligned with any candidate or campaign.


Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Delaware

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Rhode Island

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Connecticut

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Delaware

This is the thirty-second 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.


DELAWARE

Here we are staring an April 24 series of primaries in the face and the 2012 presidential primary calendar has its first real, honest-to-gosh, winner-take-all primary. Well, the First state will be the first Republican contest to allocate/bind all of its delegates to the winner of its presidential preference primary without some sort of caveat. In Florida and Arizona, all of the delegates were allocated to Mitt Romney, but both states were penalized. Both not only lost half of their delegates but their automatic delegates lost their convention voting privileges. Maryland allocated all of its delegates to Romney as well, but the former Massachusetts governor had to win each of the Old Line state's congressional districts to do so. In Washington, DC, Romney also won all of the delegates. Well, all of the non-automatic delegates from the District were bound to him while the automatic delegates remained unbound free agents. The situation was similar in Puerto Rico with the exception that the allocation was conditionally winner-take-all/proportional.²

But Delaware is the first state to allocate and bind all 17 of its delegates -- including automatic delegates -- to the winner of today's closed primary.

Delaware delegate breakdown:

• 17 total delegates
• 11 at-large delegates
• 3 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

At-large/congressional district/automatic allocation: The winner of the primary -- whether by plurality or majority -- wins all 17 delegates from the state of Delaware.

--
It should be noted that Newt Gingrich picked up the endorsement of Delaware Republican National Committeewoman Priscilla Rakestraw. However, should someone other than Gingrich win the Delaware primary, Ms. Rakestraw will be bound to the winner through the first ballot at the Tampa convention regardless of her preference.

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

² If you read that paragraph closely, note that Romney has done quite well in states that have allocated their delegates on a winner-take-all basis. In those states where conditionality rules have been triggered, Romney has been the beneficiary.


Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Rhode Island

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Connecticut

Race to 1144: MN, MO & WY Conventions

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Rhode Island

This is the thirty-first 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.


RHODE ISLAND

For a state that is strictly proportional in terms of its delegate allocation, Rhode Island has some interesting contours. Sure, it is true that FHQ has said that about a great many "proportional" states, but the elections statutes in the Ocean state are clear in laying out the parameters of the presidential primary process and any resultant delegate allocation. In that way, Rhode Island is like neighboring Massachusetts or nearby New Hampshire. But instead of a 10% threshold for receiving delegates in New Hampshire, the threshold, as in Massachusetts, is set at 15% (see Rule 3.02).^{2 3}

Rhode Island delegate breakdown:

• 19 total delegates
• 10 at-large delegates
• 6 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

At-large and congressional district delegates: Mathematically, it will work out that a candidate who receives 40% of the vote will receive approximately 40% of the delegates from Rhode Island. Getting to that point, though, is not as easy. Another of the contours of the Rhode Island Republican delegate allocation is that instead of treating the total 16 delegates as a pool of delegates, they are divided across the two congressional districts. Each congressional district is allotted eight delegates which are then allocated to candidates based on their statewide share of the presidential preference primary vote. [This was different four years ago when there was an odd number of total at-large/congressional district delegates that had to be unevenly apportioned across districts.] If Romney, for instance, receives 40% of the vote, he will receive three delegates from each of Rhode Island's two congressional districts (about 40% of the delegates). Of the delegates filed by the Romney campaign in Rhode Island, the top three will be taken from each district's list.

Automatic delegates: All three automatic delegates are free to select a presidential candidate of their preference, and all three automatic delegates have endorsed Mitt Romney.

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

² Rhode Island Republican Party delegate selection rules:
2012 RIGOP Delegate Selection Process

³ Of course, if one looks at either Title 17.12 or Title 17-12.1 of the Rhode Island General Laws, there is no mention -- anymore (???) -- of "proportional" or "15%". [If you see any mention of either in the statutes, drop me a line. I've looked through them a few times now and have been unsuccessful.] Regardless, those are the rules the Rhode Island Republican Party is utilizing for its 2012 delegate allocation.

Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Connecticut

Race to 1144: MN, MO & WY Conventions

Another Weekend, Another Mixed Bag for Romney in Caucus State Delegate Allocation

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Connecticut

This is the thirtieth 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.


CONNECTICUT

FHQ took its stab at the Connecticut Republican Party delegate selection rules for the 2012 cycle back in October 2011 when the State Central Committee voted to change the rules.² That said, it is worth glancing at the changes one more time before the primary is all said and done. For the record, the Connecticut Republican Party has shifted from a plan similar to Maryland and Wisconsin to one that fairly closely resembles the plan in New York. In other words, instead of being winner-take-all both statewide and by congressional district, Connecticut is conditionally winner-take-all/proportional at the state level while remaining winner-take-all at the congressional district level. [Let's just shunt to the side the quirk in New York that has the Republican Party there apportioning two instead of three delegates to the old (pre-census) 29 districts instead of the new (post-census) 27 districts.]

The bottom line is that both Connecticut and New York are marginally more "proportional" than either was in 2008. Plus those sorts of changes have not had all that great of an impact yet and that is even more true in a scenario where Romney has all but been dubbed the presumptive nominee by the RNC.

Connecticut delegate breakdown:

• 28 total delegates
• 10 at-large delegates
• 15 congressional district delegates

At-large allocation: The ten at-large delegates are allocated winner-take-all if one candidate claims more than 50% of the vote, otherwise the delegates are allocated to the candidates clearing the 20% threshold in the statewide presidential primary vote. Even though Rick Santorum did not perform all that well in the other contests in the northeast, with him out of the race, the expectation is that the vote will begin to consolidate behind Mitt Romney. Is that enough to push the former Massachusetts governor over the 50% mark? Prior to the three April 3 primaries and before Santorum's exit, FHQ projected Romney to hit a 49% vote share in Connecticut.³ He doesn't have that much farther to go. Should Romney not make it, Ron Paul would be pretty close to the 20% threshold and claiming a proportional share of the delegates. The reality is that with Santorum out, both are likely to occur: Romney over 50% and Paul over 20%.

Congressional district allocation: This is pretty cut and dry: win the district -- by majority or plurality -- win its three delegates.

Automatic delegate allocation: The automatic delegates in Connecticut are unbound and free to choose any candidate they prefer. Connecticut Republican Party chair, Jerry Labriola, has already endorsed Romney. The two national committee members have yet to weigh in.

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

² Connecticut Republican Party Rules and Bylaws (see Article I, Section 17):2012 CTGOP Delegate Selection Rules

³ Ron Paul was projected at 16.6% and Newt Gingich at 9.2%.

Recent Posts:
Race to 1144: MN, MO & WY Conventions

Another Weekend, Another Mixed Bag for Romney in Caucus State Delegate Allocation

In Missouri, A Bill to Bind Delegates Based on the Presidential Primary; Not the Caucus

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

Race to 1144: MN, MO & WY Conventions

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

Delegate breakdown (post-MN, MO & WY conventions):
Changes since Colorado, Minnesota and North Dakota state/district conventions (4/17/12):

• Romney: +31 delegates (Wyoming: +14, Missouri: +12, Tennessee: +2, Arkansas: +1, Illinois: +1, Oregon: +1, Alabama: +1)
• Santorum: +7 delegates (Missouri: +7)
• Paul: +16 delegates (Minnesota: +10, Missouri: +4, Colorado: +2)
• Gingrich: +/- 0 delegates (Missouri: +1, Alabama: -1)

Notes:
1) It should be noted that the delegates are difficult to classify in both Nevada and Vermont as both sets of automatic delegates are bound and proportionally allocated with either all of the delegates (Nevada) or with the at-large delegates (Vermont). Those six delegates are in the bound/pledged category in the spreadsheet above but are considered "contest delegates" in the bar chart at the top. It would not be surprising to see those six delegates among those who signed pledges to Romney at the RNC meeting in Scottsdale this past week when and if that list is made public.

2) Speaking of that list of pledges, at least five of the automatic delegates have been identified.

3) FHQ remembered to follow Colorado and Minnesota last weekend while I was on the road at a conference in Chicago, but the Wyoming Republican Party state convention was something I missed. All 14 of the delegates to be allocated at the state convention were allocated to Mitt Romney:

"The Wyoming Republican Party chose 14 delegates Saturday to this summer's Republican National Convention and all of them are committed to support Romney. The state will send a total of 29 delegates to the RNC."

4) Two of the unpledged delegates coming out of the Colorado conventions a week ago are Ron Paul supporters.

"Todd King of Lewis and Luke Kirk of Bayfield, both supporters of Texas congressman Ron Paul, were elected delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., in August. They edged out the official slate of Romney delegates at Friday evening’s convention of 3rd Congressional District Republicans."

Don't be surprised when and if more of the other 12 unpledged Colorado delegates reveal themselves to be aligned with Paul.

5) The four congressional district conventions that have been held in Minnesota have favored Texas congressman, Ron Paul, thus far. Ten of his supporters won slots in the four conventions held over the weekend, bringing Paul's total delegates won in the North Star state to 20 -- half the total Minnesota delegation. The affiliation of the weekend's remaining two delegates are unknown.

6) In the eight Missouri congressional district conventions over the weekend, Mitt Romney won half of the 24 total delegates at stake. The other twelve delegates were divided among Santorum (7 delegates), Paul (4 delegates) and Gingrich (1 delegate). Romney swept all of the delegates in the 4th and 8th districts. Ron Paul did the same in the 5th district. Three candidates took delegates in each of the 1st and 6th districts while the final three districts elected Romney-Santorum slates.

7) The allocation of the delegates in Georgia is based on the most recent vote returns published online by the office of the Georgia Secretary of State. The allocation here differs from the RNC allocation in Georgia. The above grants Gingrich one additional delegate (which has been taken from Romney's total). Due to the way the Georgia Republican Party rounds fractional delegates, the FHQ count was off by one delegate (+Romney/-Gingrich). The congressional district count is unaffected (Gingrich 31, Romney, 8 and Santorum 3), but the way the at-large delegates are allocated to Gingrich and Romney -- the only candidates over 20% statewide -- is a bit quirky. Gingrich's portion of the vote would have entitled him to 14.6 delegates and Romney's 8.0. Under Georgia Republican rules, Gingrich is given 14 delegates and Romney 8. That leaves nine delegates unclaimed because the remaining candidates did not clear the 20% threshold. The candidate with the highest "remainder" is awarded the first delegate and the candidates over 20% trade turns until all of those delegates are allocated. Remember, Gingrich did not round up to 15 delegates (14.6), but that 0.6 gives him a larger "remainder" than Romney. The former speaker, then, is allocated the first of nine delegates. With an odd number of delegates leftover, Gingrich would have a fifth turn after Romney's fourth and that would end the allocation of those "extra" delegates. Gingrich would claim five to Romney's four. Of the 31 at-large delegates, Gingrich is allocated 19 and Romney 12. Please note that for winning the statewide vote, Gingrich is allocated the three automatic delegates. That makes the final allocation Gingrich 53, Romney 20 and Santorum 3. The RNC, though, has a different interpretation.

8) The Alabama primary results by congressional district have not been released by the Alabama Republican Party. UPDATE (4/23/12, 1pm): Admittedly, FHQ had not checked on the Alabama delegate situation in a while [BOO! -- But thanks to Matt for prompting me to check in the comments below.]. In the meantime, the Alabama Republican Party revamped their website and now glosses over the delegate allocation. The press releases section now skips from April to February in the inverted chronology with nothing from March. I was still unable to track down the certified results by congressional district, but there is a certified delegate allocation from the Alabama Republican Party floating around out there:
Alabama Republican Presidential Primary Certified Results

What was "preliminary" about the delegate list in the memo on March 23 was "confirmed" by the Alabama Republican Party on or around April 6.

Recent Posts:
Another Weekend, Another Mixed Bag for Romney in Caucus State Delegate Allocation

In Missouri, A Bill to Bind Delegates Based on the Presidential Primary; Not the Caucus

Race to 1144: CO, MN & ND Conventions

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