The Electoral College Map (7/18/12)

There were a handful of polls out today and and additional one that came in after the buzzer yesterday. How earth-shattering any of them were is in the eye of the beholder, but each of the four were from states that were and continue to be blue following the addition of the new polls to the FHQ weighted average.

New State Polls (7/18/12)
State	Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Obama	Romney	Undecided	Poll Margin	FHQ Margin
New Hampshire	UNH/WMUR	7/5-7/15	+/- 4.5%	470 likely voters	49	45	3	+4	+4.66
New Jersey	Quinnipiac	7/9-7/15	+/- 2.4%	1623 registered voters	49	38	11	+11	+13.95
New Mexico	PPP1	7/13-7/16	+/- 3.64%	724 registered voters	42	38	6	+4	+10.88
Virginia	Rasmussen	7/16-7/17	+/- 4.5%	500 likely voters	47	46	3	+1	+3.23
1 The poll numbers used from the Public Policy Polling survey of New Mexico include Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. The former New Mexico governor received the support of 13% of the respondents. Without Johnson, Obama (49%) leads Romney (44%) by 5%. Using that data would have increased the FHQ weighted average margin to 11.14 in favor of the president.

Poll Quick Hits:
New Hampshire:
I don't know that I buy the idea that Obama slipped in the UNH Granite State Poll. Sure the margin was small-ish, but the result was entirely in line with the recent New Hampshire polling. The problem, if you can call it that, was that most seemed to compare this July Granite State Poll to the one conducted  April. And yeah, that poll represented something of a high water mark for Obama. It is, along with the January UNH poll and a May Public Policy Polling survey, the among the minority of polls to show Obama cresting above 50%. Is New Hampshire close? Yes. Have other polls shown this already? Yes as evidenced by the minuscule drop in the FHQ margin between the president and Governor Romney once this poll was added. Moving on.

New Jersey:
Strong Obama state before, Strong Obama state after. That there was any significant shift in the weighted average was driven more by the fact that the Quinnipiac poll replaced the +23 Rutgers poll as the most recent poll of the presidential race in the Garden state. That did jump New Jersey up two spots toward the victory line on the Electoral College Spectrum. Don't read too much into that at this point though. There just isn't enough polling data on the state level yet to prevent some minor volatility like that.

New Mexico:
The Public Policy Polling survey in the Land of Enchantment doesn't really pass the smell test. I don't say that because there is anything wrong in the poll necessarily, but more because this one looks like an outlier at this point. As CNN's Peter Hamby tweeted, New Mexico isn't on either campaigns' radar. I also liked Dave Weigel's comment that Crossroads has been running ads in New Mexico unchecked, but I'm not ready to sign off on that rather convenient explanation until I see either Obama or Romney campaigning/buying ad time there or some more data showing this tight of a race.

Virginia:
If you want a tight race, see Virginia. Of course, the Rasmussen poll represents the closest margin in a survey of the Old Dominion since the deadlocked poll Rasmussen released a month ago. The net change in the overall weighted average in Virginia as negligible. It remains the fourth closest state behind North Carolina, Florida and Iowa.

All told, the four polls did not change anything on the electoral college map. In fact, the only thing that did change on the map was the date.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
RI-4 (7)2	MN-10 (156)	NH-4 (257)	IN-11 (159)	ND-3 (55)
NY-29 (36)	NJ-14 (170)	OH-183 (275/281)	MT-3 (148)	MS-6 (52)
HI-4 (40)	CT-7 (177)	CO-9 (284/263)	GA-16 (145)	AL-9 (46)
VT-3 (43)	WA-12 (189)	VA-13 (297/254)	WV-5 (129)	KY-8 (37)
MD-10 (53)	NM-5 (194)	IA-6 (303/241)	SC-9 (124)	KS-6 (29)
CA-55 (108)	OR-7 (201)	FL-29 (332/235)	LA-8 (115)	AK-3 (23)
MA-11 (119)	PA-20 (221)	NC-15 (206)	NE-5 (107)	OK-7 (20)
IL-20 (139)	WI-10 (231)	MO-10 (191)	AR-6 (102)	ID-4 (13)
DE-3 (142)	NV-6 (237)	AZ-11 (181)	TX-38 (96)	WY-3 (9)
ME-4 (146)	MI-16 (253)	TN-11 (170)	SD-3 (58)	UT-6 (6)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. 2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Romney won all the states up to and including Ohio (all Obama's toss up states plus Ohio), he would have 272 electoral votes. Romney's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and Romney's is on the right in italics. 3 Ohio is the state where Obama crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

The Watch List added only New Mexico. The PPP survey pulled the Land of Enchantment within range of shifting to an Obama lean. That does bring a little of the darkest blue onto the list, but that is really the only noteworthy thing about it. There is still a fairly wide berth between New Mexico and Oregon, the Obama lean state with the largest margin.

The Watch List1
State	Switch
Florida	from Toss Up Obama	to Toss Up Romney
Georgia	from Strong Romney	to Lean Romney
Michigan	from Toss Up Obama	to Lean Obama
Missouri	from Toss Up Romney	to Lean Romney
Nevada	from Lean Obama	to Toss Up Obama
New Hampshire	from Toss Up Obama	to Lean Obama
New Mexico	from Strong Obama	to Lean Obama
North Carolina	from Toss Up Romney	to Toss Up Obama
West Virginia	from Strong Romney	to Lean Romney
1 Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

One thing that I failed to mention in the initial trial electoral college post yesterday was that the map (and perhaps the other graphics -- I haven't decided yet.) will have a permanent home here. You can also find a link to that by clicking on the map in the upper left corner.

Recent Posts:

FHQ Credentialed for Both Major Party Conventions

The Electoral College Map (7/17/12)

Curbs on 2012 Frontloading, Sanctions and the GOP Proportionality Rule

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

FHQ Credentialed for Both Major Party Conventions

Word on credentials decisions seemingly [finally¹] trickled out via email from the Democratic National Convention Committee to the blogger class yesterday. FHQ was among the lucky ones to nab credentials to the Charlotte convention, meaning we'll be on the ground at both conventions later this summer.

Big news. I'm excited to see (and share) what happens at both conventions in terms of the 2016 rules.

...among a great deal of other things.

--
¹ The RNC notified me of FHQ's credentials to the Tampa convention at the end of June.

Recent Posts:

The Electoral College Map (7/17/12)

Curbs on 2012 Frontloading, Sanctions and the GOP Proportionality Rule

Thoughts on 2016

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

The Electoral College Map (7/17/12)

With just 16 weeks left for candidates to win -- 112 news cycles to spin -- before election day, here is what the electoral college map looks like using FHQ's graduated weighted average.

Now, FHQ will not focus too extensively on the electoral vote numbers. The intent at this juncture to create the baseline from which future updates can and will be compared. The electoral vote tally is secondary -- at least for now -- to the graphic below. The Electoral College Spectrum translates the weighted averages (more on those in a moment) into a ranking of states from the most strongly-aligned with Barack Obama to the state most firmly behind Mitt Romney. Of course, for our purposes, all the interest is not in those easy to peg states so much as the states that will decide the election within the electoral college. In 2008, Obama pushed toward the bottom of the middle column of states and was competitive into the next rightward column (states like Georgia and Arizona).

But in 2012 the terrain is different. The battle is still being waged overly closely competitive states in the middle column of the Electoral College Spectrum, but instead of a push to the right, the overall tilt is back toward the left -- bluer or traditionally bluer territory on the presidential level. Michigan, for instance, is much closer in the FHQ weighted average than it was in 2008. And that brings this discussion back to the utility of the spectrum: It gives us a glimpse into the relative arrangement of states in terms of the margins separating President Obama and Governor Romney in a weighted average of state-level polls. The common refrain from political scientists is that this process is like a pendulum swinging back and forth from cycle to cycle; that states will, overall, see a similar shift in the aggregate. But the underlying assumption is often that while the partisanship of the electorate may shift which state falls into which party's column in any given election, the alignment of states is largely similar. That is certainly not wrong. A glance back at 2008 shows that Rhode Island and Hawaii are every bit as much Obama states as Utah and Wyoming are Romney/Republican states. The same is true for the group of states that will see so many candidate visits and never-ending television ad buys over the next 16 weeks.

However, the relative ordering is important and so are some of the individual state shifts. Take aforementioned Michigan. The Great Lakes state is now essentially right where it was in the ordering in FHQ's final electoral college projection on election day 2008. But it is a lot closer in 2012. Iowa, on the other hand, is also closer in 2012 relative to 2008, but it has shifted over an entire column on the spectrum. That is significant in all of this.¹ It also adds a layer to our understanding of the shifts or prompts at the very least to ask why one state has moved so much and another has not.

[For more on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum, please follow the link in the figure's footnotes.]

The Electoral College Spectrum1
RI-4 (7)2	ME-4 (160)	NH-4 (257)	IN-11 (159)	ND-3 (55)
NY-29 (36)	MN-10 (170)	OH-183 (275/281)	MT-3 (148)	MS-6 (52)
HI-4 (40)	NM-5 (175)	CO-9 (284/263)	GA-16 (145)	AL-9 (46)
VT-3 (43)	CT-7 (182)	VA-13 (297/254)	WV-5 (129)	KY-8 (37)
MD-10 (53)	WA-12 (194)	IA-6 (303/241)	SC-9 (124)	KS-6 (29)
CA-55 (108)	OR-7 (201)	FL-29 (332/235)	LA-8 (115)	AK-3 (23)
MA-11 (119)	PA-20 (221)	NC-15 (206)	NE-5 (107)	OK-7 (20)
IL-20 (139)	WI-10 (231)	MO-10 (191)	AR-6 (102)	ID-4 (13)
DE-3 (142)	NV-6 (237)	AZ-11 (181)	TX-38 (96)	WY-3 (9)
NJ-14 (156)	MI-16 (253)	TN-11 (170)	SD-3 (58)	UT-6 (6)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. 2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Romney won all the states up to and including Ohio (all Obama's toss up states plus Ohio), he would have 272 electoral votes. Romney's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and Romney's is on the right in italics. 3 Ohio is the state where Obama crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

Finally, one additional figure helps to parse this out further: the Watch List. These are states that are a fraction of a percentage point in the weighted average from shifting categories. Florida, for example, is within one point of shifting into Mitt Romney's column. If one is looking for new polls that might have an effect on which states fall into which category (strong, lean or toss up), these are the states to be on the look out for.

The Watch List1
State	Switch
Florida	from Toss Up Obama	to Toss Up Romney
Georgia	from Strong Romney	to Lean Romney
Michigan	from Toss Up Obama	to Lean Obama
Missouri	from Toss Up Romney	to Lean Romney
Nevada	from Lean Obama	to Toss Up Obama
New Hampshire	from Toss Up Obama	to Lean Obama
North Carolina	from Toss Up Romney	to Toss Up Obama
West Virginia	from Strong Romney	to Lean Romney
1 Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

Methodology (quick hits)²:

• Everything above is based on a graduated weighted average of polls in each state conducted in 2012. The weighting is based on how old a poll is. The older the poll is the more it is discounted. The most recent poll is given full weight. The main difference between what one sees here and what FHQ did toward the tail end of the 2008 cycle is that the collective weight of the polls other than the most recent one are not halved. The reason for the change is based on where we are in the process, or more accurately, how many polls have been conducted. Right now, there just are not enough polls in each state and the full weighted average is needed to ward off the influence of outliers that may arise. Later on, say, post-conventions most likely, we may have enough polls serving as a sufficient anchor on any outliers. There can be a fine line between the responsiveness of the averages and wild fluctuations. The way things are constructed, the average ends up being fairly conservative. If a change occurs, then, it is usually a lasting change.  
• Strong states are those states with an average margin between Romney and Obama of over 10%. Lean states are those between 5% and 10% margins. Finally, toss ups are those states under 5%. Admittedly, these distinctions are somewhat arbitrary. There is enough space between New Hampshire and Michigan and the other Obama toss ups that those two states could be moved into the lean category. The same is true -- probably truer -- of Missouri on the Romney side of the ledger. There is a wide berth between Missouri and North Carolina. The 10% does appear to be a pretty good cutoff between lean and strong states though. One other addendum is that these cutoffs will be adjusted downward as we approach election day. If memory serves, the toss up threshold was moved to under 4% sometime between the conventions and the first debate and to under 3% after the final debate. Those moves are made under the assumption that greater distances are more difficult to make up for a candidate the closer it gets to election day.
• It should be noted that there are still a host of states where no polls have been conducted. For those states and for those states with just one poll, the averages of the final margins from the 2000, 2004 and 2008 elections were used. Those three elections were averaged with the lone poll in the states with just one poll conducted thus far. FHQ is not totally comfortable with this (see particularly Arkansas and West Virginia), but it is the best that can be done in this simple framework. There is plenty of complex out there, but we like to keep it simple here if only to stack up a rather parsimonious model against some of the other more complex ones at the end of the process. 
• Updates? If polling is trickling in at least somewhat regularly I will try to update every day even though that level of posting isn't really necessary at this point. Look, I've to make amends for starting this in July somehow. 

Comments, questions, things I missed? Please feel free to chime in on Twitter (@FHQ, hashtag #ec2012) or in the comments section below.

--
¹ Of course, there are some issues with that comparison. First of all, the comparison points in the race and thus the amount of polling data available in July versus November is vastly different to say the least. Why, just this morning, FHQ was bemoaning the lack of polling in Iowa of all places. For a state as seemingly close as it is, it has been polled very sporadically in 2012. Secondly, one could also take issue with FHQ using its weighted average instead of the actual election results where Iowa was much closer to its current position. That is a fair point. Both datapoints are useful. Plus, that points out a potential shortcoming of the polls and the resulting weighted average (with more emphasis on the latter).

² For a more extensive look at the methods behind the above figures please feel free to check out the FAQ from 2008. The underlying methodology is largely similar.

Recent Posts:

Curbs on 2012 Frontloading, Sanctions and the GOP Proportionality Rule

Thoughts on 2016

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Texas

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

Curbs on 2012 Frontloading, Sanctions and the GOP Proportionality Rule

As primary season draws to a close in Utah tomorrow and goes on hiatus until -- January most likely -- 2016, FHQ wanted to revisit some of what was witnessed during the 2012 cycle. I mentioned in my "Thoughts on 2016" post a few weeks ago that I had an email exchange -- at least a portion of it on my end -- that I wanted to share tying things up quite nicely. This builds something of a bridge between 2012 and 2016 on the possible sanctions in the future while also reviewing the impact the new Republican proportionality rule had both in curbing the frontloading trend.

What follows is my response to an annotated minutes of the bipartisan rules meeting I attended at Harvard in May.

On sanctions:

"I [FHQ] was on record ... as being for some form of coordinated sanctions across both parties for [timing] rules violators. Getting there presents a significant hurdle, though. The 100% penalty, while likely potentially effective, seems too draconian to me. The impression I got from the Republicans in the room ... was that the RNC is in a wait-and-see mode on all of this. If this is a sequential game, then, the next move is to see whether the convention in Tampa sticks with the penalties as described in the 2008 Rules of the Republican Party (amended August 2010). If those penalties are enforced, the game moves on to its 2016 iteration where we will have the ability to test the effectiveness of both the rule and its enforcement (50% penalty on all states in violation of the timing rules).  

"The trajectory of this may be a little slow in pace for some, but it is a prudent approach; one that is not overly reactionary. A party (or parties) cannot hope to make states tow the line on delegate selection rules if it does not first demonstrate that it will enforce said rules. 2016 would offer us the first cycle where both parties -- if both have open nomination processes -- would have demonstrated a willingness to stand up to the states and enforce the rules in the immediately prior, competitive cycle (2008 for the Democrats and 2012 for the Republicans). That seemingly is as close to a united front from both parties as we are going to get prior to 2020. Initially, I was somewhat discouraged by that, but after some contemplation on the plane home ... I was satisfied with a wait-and-see course of action. 

"Of course, if the Tampa convention is lax in some way on its enforcement of the rules, then, as I think was mentioned by several ... (perhaps not in these exact words), the process returns to the Wild Wild West; a situation in which one or both parties have essentially signaled to the states that the rules have no teeth. That scenario puts this group back to where it was immediately following the 2004 election." 

The main talking point from which this originated was the idea of a 100% penalty for states with primaries or caucuses timed in violation of the parties' rules. This was a nonstarter for the Republicans and was never something the Democrats viewed as being enforced in a convention setting; only as a means of affecting the within-season delegate count. The bottom line is that we will indeed have to wait and see if the RNC sticks with its 50% penalty in Tampa and whether that effectively prohibits states from moving to early dates outside of the window in which non-exempt states can hold contests in 2016.

--
On proportionality:

"I would urge extreme caution in terms of describing the newly adopted proportionality requirement on the Republican side as a "significant antidote" to frontloading. We don't know that. [Correlation does not mean causation.] In fact, I would argue that the formation of the 2012 presidential primary calendar did not demonstrate that at all. [The Republicans in the May meeting] may be able to more adequately counter this, but I followed the state-level deliberations on primary/caucus scheduling, well, obsessively, and I can only think of a handful of examples where this particular rule was raised in the discussions. 

"1. In Texas in the early 2011 discussions about remedying overseas military voting issues (a matter that included a possible change of the March 6 primary date the Lone Star state then held), the Republican Party of Texas made clear in committee hearings that they were (again, not in these words) fearful of the impact the new proportionality rules would have on their delegation. Texas had a winner-take-all method of delegate allocation at that point. [The "fear" was unwarranted as the party had a conditional trigger embedded in the allocation rules that would have made the allocation proportional if no candidate had over 50% of the primary vote or winner-take-all if a candidate did receive that share of the vote or greater. Under those rules, Texas would have been compliant.]  

"2. In Georgia in the spring of 2011, the Republican Party seemed to signal that the inability to allocate delegates on a winner-take-all basis was an issue. Chairwoman Everhart indicated as much by favoring an April date for the primary right after the legislature granted Brian's office the ability to set the date of the primary. Now, as was mentioned a week ago, the thinking within the [state] party changed over time regarding proportional allocation

"That's it. In no other instances do I recall the new proportionality requirement being raised as a reason for a primary or caucus move on the state level. In fact, if we go back to what the calendar looked like in January 2011, there were seventeen or eighteen states that had to move from January or February dates -- then codified in state election law or party bylaws -- to become compliant with the altered delegate selection rules put in place by both national parties. These are the rules mandating a March or later date for all non-exempt (carve out) states. Of that group of states, all but five moved back. Of those five, two -- Minnesota and Colorado -- were compliant with February dates by virtue of not allocating any delegates (nor binding them) in the precinct caucuses. The remaining three were Arizona, Florida and Michigan. I can, in none of the states that moved back, think of any example where the proportionality requirement was mentioned as a motivating factor for the resultant move. The delegate penalty was seemingly enough of a deterrent. [Although, again, correlation is not causation, but the case is more compelling in this instance.] 

"As I mentioned in our discussion, Republican states tended to move back to March dates while Democratic states tended to move back to April, May or June dates. All of those March states altered their delegate allocation rules where applicable. And counterintuitively, two states -- Connecticut and New York -- actually moved back beyond April 1 and instituted slightly more proportional allocation methods than had been used in the past. Most states (in this case, state Republican parties) maintained the status quo in terms of their underlying method of delegate allocation. This seemed -- in comments on our side of the table -- a rather perplexing outcome: that states further back on the calendar would not adopt winner-take-all rules. [It should be noted that three of those [late] states -- Kentucky, North Carolina and Oregon -- all are required to allocate delegates proportionally according to state law. That is the reason in those instances.] 

"Does any of this mean that the proportionality rule failed or should be scrapped? No, it doesn't and I certainly don't want to rain on the parade of a rules-crafting effort that was well-thought out, not to mention well intentioned. All it means is that we have not had an adequate test of its impact. We need further study; further cycles with that rule in effect. This is especially true in light of the fact that there is no enforcement mechanism on states already in violation of the timing rules. [No secondary penalty for states like Florida that violate the timing rules and the proportionality rule.] But I was satisfied with the fix that [was] described with a convention stage mechanism embedded with the convention's committee on calls. 

"However, it is clear to me that the rule did not deter frontloading. No states were seriously looking to move forward in this cycle. In fact, only in New Mexico, North Carolina and Texas was legislation moving a primary forward ever proposed. None of the bills advanced any further than being referred to committee. Every other state that moved -- or proposed moving -- moved back, and that was for a confluence of reasons that did not overtly include the proportionality rule. I honestly don't think states and state parties understood the nature of the rules change. But I could be wrong in that assessment."  

This is the front end proportionality impact story, that along with the back end -- that the proportionality rule did not slow down the delegate race -- offers some interesting insight into how effective the rule was in 2012. The true impact is that states may not have understood the rule or the penalty associated with it completely. That opens the door to a more effective test of the proportionality rule during the 2016 cycle.

Recent Posts:
Thoughts on 2016

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Texas

Excuses, excuses


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

Thoughts on 2016

I know, right?

It's too early to be talking about 2016. It is, and FHQ will not bother you with any sort of speculation about the candidates likely to emerge or how the 2016 primary season may or may not play out. That is something we can all revisit in 2015. However, FHQ is willing to entertain discussions about what the rules governing primary season during the next cycle will look like.

The parties are doing this to varying degrees and it is relevant no matter what the appetite to discuss this among those who may be weary from 2012 with five months still to go before election day.

The RNC has already met in full and passed resolutions/recommendations concerning the 2016 rules for the full convention to consider in August. The Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee will probably not meet until next year to begin the discussions on 2016, but there will likely be some discussion of the next cycle at the September convention in Charlotte. Also, some members on the rules making bodies from both parties assembled at the Harvard Institute of Politics to further discuss the ways in which the Democrats and Republicans can work together to bring a but more order to the process from the formation of the primary calendar all the way through to an ideal point(s) at which a nominee should be determined.

FHQ was privileged to have been invited to participate in what was more of a workshop than anything else. I've been sitting on this for a while but I wanted to share with everyone not only what I discussed in my presentation, but my impressions of what is likely on the horizon for the 2016 rules and some preliminary implications.

2012 Primary Calendar in Review
Much of what I talked about in Cambridge is not anything that should be unfamiliar to regular readers so I won't dwell on it too much.

• The presidential nomination process from the states' perspective has increasingly become one of learned behavior. As it is now, there are three types of states: 1) the carve-out states; 2) states that are willing to break the rules in order to go early; and 3) states that follow the rules.

• What separates the second tier of states from the other two certainly involves breaking the rules, but is also greatly dependent upon the flexibility those states have in terms of being able -- much less willing -- to break the rules on timing. Florida's Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee can continue to in the future hold the calendar hostage until October 1. That was the value the shifting the decision-making authority from a state legislature that adjourns in May to a different entity that can wait until October 1. 

• The situation is similar in Arizona and Georgia (...even though the Peach state did not pull the trigger on a non-compliant primary date in 2012). In both cases, either the governor (Arizona) or secretary of state (Georgia) has the ability to set the primary date instead of a potentially divided and early-adjourning legislature. That flexibility provides these states with an advantage similar to what has allowed New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner protect the Granite state's first in the nation primary. 

• In Michigan, the legislature meets year round, and the primary is scheduled on a date -- the fourth Tuesday in February -- on which other primary contests are held. Institutionally then, the Michigan legislature does not face the same sort of constraints as other states' legislatures, and the state has a built-in excuse/reason for maintaining a non-compliant position.

• In keeping with the learned behavior theme, states have not only learned to build in flexibility, but are beginning to demand more space. New Hampshire and Iowa have state laws protecting their positions at the front of the line, but each also requires a certain amount of space between their contests and others. Iowa has allowed less than eight days between its caucuses and the New Hampshire primary for two straight cycles, but the history of New Hampshire maintaining the seven days after its primary and another "similar contest" is a long yarn indeed. It popped up in the showdown between New Hampshire and Nevada in 2011 and other similar instances are littered throughout the post-reform era. This is all well and good, but there are signs that this behavior is spreading to other states. South Carolina has now for two consecutive cycles set its primary ten days before of the rogue Florida primary -- the next earliest southern state. There has now been proposed legislation in South Carolina to codify at least a seven day window between the Palmetto state primary and any other southern contest. Given the state's penchant for Saturday primaries, if that bill is ever passed, South Carolina will likely continue to be ten days before (probably) Florida. FHQ won't go so far as to suggest that this will have any huge implications in 2016 or even further down the road, but it is a trend that is worth monitoring as 2016 approaches. 

• Of course, the space issue manifested itself in another notable way in 2012. States -- for various reasons -- took a step back from the "pile up on the earliest allowed date" approach that characterized the 2008 calendar. Those states that had to shift back the dates of their primaries and caucuses to comply with the 2012 delegate selection rules moved back in a fairly predictable pattern. Republican-controlled states moved back to occupy March dates while Democratic-controlled states tended to move into April or later slots. Those moves to April and later had partisan elements to them, but it was also a function of space. Those dates were typically less crowded than the first Tuesday in March ended up being. 

• That last group of states (#3 above) still represents the overwhelming majority of states. But as Florida -- and to a lesser extent, Arizona and Michigan -- once again demonstrated, it only takes one state to overturn the apple cart, thus messing up the two parties' carefully planned February starting point.  

• Florida going rogue again highlighted the fact that even with bipartisan coordination on the rules, that is not a sufficient barrier to states breaking the rules. As FHQ has said many times in this space, the next logical step is for the parties to devise a set of coordinate sanctions and stick to them. That allows the parties to present a united front against the states. The only problem is that there is no consensus as to what those sanctions -- coordinated or otherwise -- should be. This proved to be true of the meeting in Cambridge.

Impressions on the Harvard Meeting about the 2016 Rules

• There is nothing that makes this 2016 discussion more relevant now than the fact that the Republican rules will be set at the Tampa convention. When I asked one RNC member what the odds were of there being anything like the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee to examine the rules in between conventions, the odds of it were placed a 0%. Tampa is it, folks.

• Don't expect big changes to the Republican rules (...and by extension the Democratic Party rules). 

• Interestingly, it came up that it was possible for a state under the Republican rules to schedule a primary or (binding) caucus for the March 1-5 window and not be penalized. The rules (Rule 15.b.1) prohibited states from holding a contest prior to the first Tuesday in March, but the penalties (Rule 16.a) only kicked in if a state held a contest "...before the first day of the month in which that state is authorized by Rule No. 15(b) to vote for a presidential candidate...". The RNC dodged a bullet on that one. [But I think this underlines just how much states and state actors actually look at the rules when setting dates; particularly state legislatures.]

• There is a fix in the works for the Florida problem. No, I don't mean cracking down on the Sunshine state propensity for jumping in line. Instead the RNC is moving to put in place a procedural fix for states that attempt in the future to repeat what Florida and Arizona did in 2012: not only jumping into non-compliance on timing, but also maintaining a winner-take-all method of delegate allocation in the proportionality window. Again, let me emphasize that the proposed fix is a procedural one as opposed to an additional penalty. The RNC obviously gives the states the ability to set their own rules, but if the states do not comply, the newly proposed rule would give the RNC the ability to seat a delegation from the state in violation that is proportional in a method the RNC chooses, not the state. This is something that the convention will have to pass in August though. It is not a reality yet.

•  This obviously raises another related issue that came up in the Harvard meeting (...though not in this context). The Democratic rules members in attendance made the case for why "caving" and allowing full delegations from penalized states to ultimately be seated at the convention. In their interpretation there is a difference states losing clout in the delegate count in the midst of a primary race and states losing delegates at the convention. That is potentially a slippery slope that invites states that don't mind the delegate hit to schedule primaries against the rules. But, as the rationale goes, if states are willing to take the reduced impact, then more power to them. 

• Part of what helped the Democrats bring that home in 2008 -- when it last mattered -- was the additional rule that sanctioned candidates for campaigning in rogue states. FHQ has harped on this rule in the past (and that's putting it mildly). That penalty was effective in greatly reducing the direct, during-primary-season impact on the 2008 Democratic nomination race. I have pointed to that rule as a pillar of any potential coordinated sanction regime that the parties may employ. I left the meeting at Harvard feeling less sure about the future of that rule. It was a candidate agreement more than anything else; one that will not necessarily translate to the next competitive Democratic nomination contest. The "enforcement" in 2008 was still almost entirely up to the candidates. And often these pledges are spearheaded by the earliest states -- Iowa and New Hampshire -- to protect their positions. Of course, the 2012 Democratic Party delegate selection rules (Rule 20.C.1.b) do not specify what the penalty for violating the campaigning prohibition, only that the Rules and Bylaws Committee has the ability to determine whether certain actions -- presumably beyond the laundry list of activities already specified -- constitute campaigning. It is up the the states and candidates.

• The RNC members in attendance thought that the new proportionality rule played a role in reducing frontloading and slowing the Republican process down. I disagreed (...and will post an edited email response to that claim in a subsequent post). 

• Much of how states react to the Republican rules in 2016 will depend on what happens at the Tampa convention. There was a palpable fear in the room among the Republicans as to what would happen in 2016 if the delegate penalties are not enforced at the convention this summer. In a phrase it would mean a calendar formation out of the wild wild west. [Yes, even more so than now, though that could be mitigated to some extent by the flexibility disparity between states described above.]

• What you see in 2012, then, is what you are likely to get in 2016 in terms of delegate selection rules. 

Implications

If the rules stay the same, what does that mean? Well, the most concrete response is that there will be calendar chaos again. Assuming Missouri moves its primary back into compliance and some of the non-binding caucus states don't get in the way, the best the calendar is likely to look in 2016 given the likelihood of significant rules changes or increased penalties is this:

• January 11 or 18: Iowa
• January 19 or 26: New Hampshire
• January 30 or February 2: Nevada
• February 6: South Carolina
• February 16: Florida
• February 23: Arizona, Michigan

This assumes that there are no other conflicts like the Arizona governor moving the date of the primary in the Grand Canyon state up or Utah funding its presidential primary scheduled for the first Tuesday in February or Colorado or Minnesota opting for caucus options on the first Tuesday in February or...

...pretty much anything else.

There is a lot of potential drama that could mess even this calendar up. And mind you, this calendar is not rules-compliant. But with Arizona and Michigan already penciled in for the date those contests are scheduled (according to state law), the above is the likely outcome.

The reason Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada have contingency dates is based on where Nevada ends up. If the Nevada parties adopt a Tuesday caucus date, they could go just four days ahead of South Carolina -- instead of a week earlier on the preceding and customary Saturday -- and allowing a week cushion for New Hampshire. But again, this is the best case scenario for the 2016 calendar. It is two weeks better than either 2008 or 2012, but does not account for what other states might do to crash the party at the front of the line.

I have feeling I'm going to be linking back to this a lot in the future. Say, 2015 or so.

Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Texas

Excuses, excuses

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Kentucky


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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Texas

This is the fortieth 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.

TEXAS

These weeks where FHQ says something to the effect of "It's a shame the Republican presidential nomination race wasn't competitive for [insert state here] so we can all see how the allocation rules work," seem like a waste. [And that doesn't even mention the fact that we continue to pump these rules primers out. Talk about a waste!] The Republican Party of Texas is utilizing a proportional method of allocation in 2012 -- a change from the past -- but they take the long way of getting there. The kicker is that the change was never really necessary in the first place -- whether Texas had held its primary on March 6, April 3 or May 29. In years past, the Texas GOP allocated delegates on a winner-take-all basis statewide and by congressional district. However, if no candidate received a majority of the vote either statewide or on the congressional district level, the allocation was proportional.

That was kosher under the newly amended RNC delegate selection rules. That method of allocation met the proportionality requirements for states with contests prior to April 1. Yet, RPT altered its rules -- creating a proportional allocation under any circumstance -- in the fall of 2011 in preparation for what was at that point a March 6 primary.

So how is the Texas proportional allocation different?

Texas delegate breakdown:

• 155 total delegates
• 44 at-large delegates
• 108 congressional delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

At-large allocation:
Congressional district allocation:
As Rule 38, Section 8 of the Republican Party of Texas rules describes, delegates are allocated to candidates in proportion to that candidate's share of the statewide vote.² There is no threshold for receiving delegates. However, there is a threshold to receiving the assignment of particular delegates. If a candidate does not receive 20% of the vote statewide, then that candidate is not eligible for congressional district delegates unless he or she receives at least 20% of the vote in any given congressional district. All that really means is that a candidate under 20% statewide and 20% in all congressional districts will gain statewide, at-large delegates to "fill out" their allotment of delegates. Meanwhile, candidates, say Mitt Romney, well over 20% both statewide and on the congressional district will gather the assignment of the most delegates from the congressional district level as a means of completing the full allocation based on the overall statewide vote while the candidates further back will be assigned at-large delegates.

Election of these delegates will take place at the state convention on June 7-9.

Automatic delegate allocation:
The three Texas automatic delegates are free to pledge themselves to a candidate of their choosing. The national committee positions are elected to four years terms at one of the state conventions held every two even-numbered years. Those positions are term-limited after two consecutive terms. That means that committeeman and RNC legal counsel Bill Crocker -- serving since 2004 -- will be replaced in his role as committeeman at the state convention. Committeewoman Borah Van Dormolen was elected in a runoff in 2009 and is still in her first term. The party chairperson is elected every two years and can serve no more than four consecutive terms. Current chair, Steve Munisteri, was first elected to the post in 2010. He will be up for reelection at the state convention but will not be term limited.

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

² Republican Party of Texas Rules (2011):2011 Republican Party Rules

Recent Posts:
Excuses, excuses

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Kentucky

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Oregon


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

Excuses, excuses

In case you haven't noticed, the output here at FHQ has been, well, paltry of late. A confluence of factors including the end of the semester, family stuff and a trip last week to Boston all conspired to slow things down in May to a level not witnessed around these parts since 2010. Anyway, the break offers an opportunity to take a step back and hit the reset button moving forward.

About the only thing that I have tried to keep on top of is the state-by-state look at delegate allocation rules. That will continue for the upcoming states and until Utah brings up the rear on June 26. I even have a couple of draft posts that were never completed for a handful of Super Tuesday contests. I'll finish those up and post them for the sake of posterity. We may or may not need to consult them again in 2016.

Additionally, there a quite a number of loose ends on the 2012 primary season that I'd like to tie up. The reason I was up in Boston a week ago was to participate in an informal workshop with some of the principals from the rules making bodies in both parties. The intention there was to look back on 2012 with an eye toward 2016. As I was putting my thoughts together for that gathering it became quite clear that there is a continued need for examining the impact of the rules changes for 2012. I have a few (a lot of?) thoughts on the both the meeting and on primary season 2012 generally. Look for both in the coming days.

Finally, FHQ has been chipping away at the assembly of our quadrennial electoral college model. Expect to see that too in the coming days.

--
Yeah, yeah. I need to update the delegate count, too. I know.


Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Kentucky

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Oregon

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Nebraska


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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Kentucky

This is the thirty-ninth 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.


KENTUCKY

Yes, much of the air has been let out of the balloon in the Republican presidential race for delegates. And even though everyone is kind of, but not really, waiting on Mitt Romney to inevitably pass the 1144 delegate threshold, there is actually some underlying intrigue to the way in which some of the remaining states are allocating national convention delegates. Kentucky is one of those states.

...but only just barely.

The last two weeks have witnessed contests a couple of states with proportional allocation rules -- something mandated by state election law in both North Carolina and Oregon. Kentucky follows suit with one exception: Election law in the Bluegrass state requires that candidates must receive at least 15% of the vote in the presidential preference primary to be allocated any of the delegates apportioned to Kentucky.² Neither North Carolina nor Oregon had similar minimum thresholds for delegates.

And lest you say this is of little consequence, well, you are probably right. However, if any candidate or the uncommitted line on the ballot should clear that 15% threshold in the Kentucky presidential preference primary, things could get somewhat interesting. You know, interesting in a more than likely less than suspenseful way. If said candidate has already withdrawn those delegate slots become uncommitted according to state law.³ Of course, no candidate has "withdrawn" as it is defined or under the terms defined in the KRS 118.641(2) -- in writing to the chairman of the Kentucky delegation.

Now, that isn't all. The delegates and alternates to the convention, then, upon call of a meeting by the chairman of the Kentucky delegate, vote to determine the allocation of delegates; not the uncommitted delegates, all of the delegates.⁴ That vote determines the proportional binding of delegates on the first convention ballot called for by state law.

This would mean a lot more if, say, Ron Paul got to 15% of the vote in the primary to qualify for delegates. Without that, the above is moot with only Romney over the 15% threshold. However, if Paul or another -- particularly a withdrawn -- candidate received a share of the vote over the threshold, it could trigger a vote by the delegates at the convention to determine the binding on the first ballot.

There is the potential for mischief on the binding until you realize that the state party's Nominating Committee is the one that actually nominates slates of delegates to be voted on/selected at district and state conventions. That committee does not have complete control but continues to nominate slates until one is agreed to by either the state convention or district conventions. There are party rule mechanisms in place in some states to give the state party more control -- not less -- over the actual delegate selection (not the binding) that others do not have (see a variety of non-binding caucus states and the Paul campaign delegate strategy for examples).

Kentucky delegate breakdown:

• 45 total delegates
• 24 at-large delegates
• 18 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

At-large and congressional district allocation:
Quite simply, candidates over 15% of the primary vote receive a proportionate share of the delegates. If Romney is the only one over 15%, the former Massachusetts governor would be allocated all 42 of the non-automatic delegates.

Automatic delegate allocation:
Similar to the type of autonomy the Republican Party of Kentucky has over the nomination of delegate slates, the Republican State Central Committee is the body that elects the party chairperson, the national committeeman and national committeewoman. The Executive Committee of the state party puts forth a slate of candidates including those offices or the RSCC to vote on (see RPK rule 2.04(j)). The election of the two national committee members and the party chair is not a duty of the delegates to the state convention. There will not, then, likely be turnover in any of these positions in 2012. None of the automatic delegates from Kentucky has publicly endorsed any of the candidates for the Republican nomination.

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

² Kentucky Revised statute, 118.641(1)(a):
The candidates receiving the highest number of votes, provided each candidate receives at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total vote cast by his political party, shall be awarded a pro rata portion of the authorized delegate vote of his political party.

³ Kentucky Revised statute, 118.641(2):
Each political party shall, on the first ballot at its national convention, cast this Commonwealth's vote for the candidates as determined by the primary or party caucus and calculated under this section or under party rules, whichever is applicable.  Provided, however, that in the event of the death or withdrawal of a candidate receiving votes under this section prior to the tabulation of the first ballot, any delegate votes allocated to such candidate shall be considered uncommitted. Withdrawal shall mean notice in writing by the candidate to the chairman of the Kentucky delegation prior to the first ballot.

⁴ Republican Party of Kentucky rule, 8.04:
8.04. National Convention Delegates:  With regard to the allocation of delegate votes of the Kentucky Republican Party at the Republican National Convention pursuant to the Kentucky Presidential Preference Primary Statutes, the method of allocation set forth in KRS 118.641(1)(a) shall be the method used by the Kentucky Republican Party.  In the event that a candidate dies or withdraws and the delegate votes allocated to such candidate become uncommitted pursuant to KRS 118.641(2), the Chairman of the delegation shall call a meeting of the delegates and alternate delegates at the convention by giving notice to each delegate and alternate delegate of the time and place of the said meeting.  At the meeting the delegates (or alternate delegates who replace any delegates who fail to attend) in attendance shall vote by secret ballot for any candidate for the Republican nomination for President each may choose.  The number of votes cast for the various candidates shall be converted to a percentage of the total votes cast by the delegates at said meeting, and the delegate votes which have become uncommitted as provided above shall be allocated to the candidates in accordance with their said respective percentages, and these said delegate votes shall be cast on the first ballot in such proportion for the said candidates.  All fractions shall be rounded to the nearest whole number.

Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Oregon

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Nebraska

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: West Virginia


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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Oregon

This is the thirty-eighth 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.


OREGON

The Oregon Republican Party method of delegate selection is similar to the method used last week in North Carolina. The main differences are that there are fewer delegates overall and that the automatic delegates are unbound as they are in most other states. Other than that, however, Oregon and North Carolina are just alike: proportional allocation of delegates but without a vote threshold for receiving delegates. The only threshold is the vote share required to round up to one delegate. Given Oregon's apportionment of delegates that mark is just over 2% of the vote. None of the candidates on the ballot last week in North Carolina flirted with that level of support and it should not be an issue for Romney, Santorum, Gingrich or Paul in Oregon either.

Oregon delegate breakdown:

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

At-large and congressional district allocation:
All 25 non-automatic delegates are allocated proportionally based on the vote in the Oregon presidential preference primary. Those delegates are pledged to the various candidates until they are released by the candidate, fail to receive 35% of the vote on any national convention ballot or barring the either of the first two release mechanisms, after two ballots at the convention (OR Revised Statutes, 248.315; Oregon Republican Party Bylaws, Article XVII, Section B).² If a delegate refuses to uphold the pledge, the delegation chairperson will report to the floor the vote total that is in accordance with the results of the primary (ORP Bylaws, Article XVII, Section B). That will occur until one of the release mechanisms has been triggered.

Automatic delegate allocation:
The national committeewoman and national committeeman are selected in presidential election years by the Oregon Republican Party state central committee (Article XIII, Section B). The same is true of the party chairman (Article VII, Section C). Each of the three automatic delegates are free to choose a candidate of their preference. Thus far one Oregon automatic delegate has already endorsed Mitt Romney.

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

² Oregon Republican Party bylaws (adopted 2/14/12):
Oregon Republican Party Bylaws

Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Nebraska

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: West Virginia

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: North Carolina


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