Question Time: What Happens to Santorum's Delegates?

Via the comments:

Will you start classifying Santorum's delegates as uncommitted?

The classification of Santorum's delegates in FHQ's Race to 1144 posts is a bit of a tricky issue. The easiest answer is to say that we will do exactly what we did with the Huntsman delegates in New Hampshire. First of all, know that the decision on the Huntsman delegates was, well, ad hoc. Though the process had yet to play out on the state level, the RNC almost immediately shifted those delegates to the "uncommitted" column in its delegate count. I suspect if the RNC had not already shifted to general election mode and was still regularly updating its in-house delegate count, the Communications folks there would similarly shift some or all of the Santorum delegates into the "uncommitted" category as well.

Yet there is a difference between a candidate with two delegates and another with more than 200 delegates. FHQ is much more inclined -- perhaps, contradictorily so -- to take the slow approach with the Santorum delegates as opposed to the Huntsman delegates. Think of primary season as a spool of thread. It is much easier to wrap an unraveled inch of thread back around the spool in an orderly way than it is to attempt re-spin 20% of the total thread unraveled to this point.

One other issue worth raising is that one of those two New Hampshire delegates for Huntsman later came out in support of Mitt Romney.¹ None of Santorum's delegates have yet to do anything like this.

Moving forward, then, the most appropriate way to deal with this issue to pull those delegates back from Santorum's total when and if state party rules or state law forces a change in their categorization. For instance, Michigan state law, not state party rules as has been reported, releases a candidate's delegates upon

...the withdrawal of that presidential candidate from contention for that party's nomination or by written release of that presidential candidate to the chairperson of the national convention, whichever is earliest. -- Act 116-1954-XXV, Section 168.619

But if you look closely at that AP account of Santorum's Michigan delegates, you will note that the actual delegates have not been selected yet. The Santorum campaign withdrew a challenge in order to safeguard the proportional selection of Santorum supporters to delegate slots by the party. [Paul campaign supporters may have something to say about that at upcoming county conventions, congressional district caucuses and the state convention.] But it doesn't really work that way. There are no safeguards.

What that means, though, is that the Santorum campaign has or hopes he has 14 theoretical delegates "bound" to him in Michigan. Once those delegates are selected, however, they will not be bound to him and chances are good that the chosen delegates will not necessarily prefer him as a candidate; opting instead for Romney or Paul.

Of course, this is just one state. The rules regarding the commitments/binding of delegates differs from state to state and the changes in the delegate count need to reflect that reality. In most instances, delegates have not been selected, but rather slots set aside for one candidate or another (via rules- or law-based binding mechanisms), and in most cases, those commitments are in place until the candidate releases them.² Those delegates will remain in Santorum's column until he releases those delegates or the actual delegates chosen come forward with publicly stated preferences indicating support for another candidate. That is similar to the treatment of the Huntsman delegates.

NOTE: The case is fairly solid in terms of moving the 14 Santorum delegates in Michigan to uncommitted in the FHQ count. That change will be made in the next update after the Indiana, North Carolina and West Virginia primaries on May 8.

--
¹ Truth be told, one of those two New Hampshire delegates is still a Huntsman delegate. It just did not make sense, however, to continue setting aside a column in the spreadsheet or bar in the bar chart for just two delegates. That one contest delegate in the unbound/unpledged section is still a Huntsman delegate. [Note to self: Add a footnote to that effect in the next update.]

² The withdrawal from contention clause in the Michigan law is a necessary but not sufficient condition in most other states. It is not either/or in other words. Rather, a withdrawal and release is necessary to unbind delegates.

Recent Posts:
Massachusetts Republican Caucuses: Sigh and Questions that Need to Be Asked/Answered

Question Time: Big [Early] States & Future Primary Calendars

Question Time


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

Massachusetts Republican Caucuses: Sigh and Questions that Need to Be Asked/Answered

This is one of those things where if folks -- and by folks I mean the press -- had been following along with both the Paul campaign/the efforts of Paul's supporters and the rules of the game in states across the county, the situation in Massachusetts this weekend likely would not have come across as that much of a shock.

The reality is that the Paul supporters, as they are doing throughout the country, are striving to elect as many Paul-aligned delegates to the national convention in Tampa as possible -- bound to Paul or whomever (more on this later in a separate post). Such was the case in caucuses across the Bay state on Saturday. Outside of the surprise/symbolism of the Romney slate not emerging victorious in the former governor's home state, there really is little else to the story. The 38 at-large and congressional district delegates are still bound to the winner of the March 6 Massachusetts primary through the first ballot at the national convention. And that is that.

--
The other interesting aspect of this is that the reporting thus far is emphasizing the fact that former Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey (R) lost in her race to become a delegate. This is strange because Healey is already a delegate having been selected by the Massachusetts Republican State Committee as the Republican National Committeewoman from the state earlier this month. In that role, Healey is already an automatic delegate to the convention. Viewed from that perspective, it is odd that Healey was even running. The position of national committeewoman is one voted on, according to Massachusetts Republican Party bylaws, by the State Committee. The State Committee members were elected through the primary on March 6 -- not in the caucuses over the weekend. That eliminates the possibility of State Committee members being elected and then turning around and selecting national committeepeople or state party chairs. The elections of those officials are outlined in Article III, Section 2 of the state party bylaws. If anyone can get through to the Romney campaign, it may perhaps be worth asking why Healey was running for a position (delegate) she could not occupy.

...since she is already a delegate.


Recent Posts:
Question Time: Big [Early] States & Future Primary Calendars

Question Time

Iowa GOP considers new rule for close caucuses 


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

Question Time: Big [Early] States & Future Primary Calendars

Via the comments:

Is there a movement afoot in either party to move one of the big swing states (OH PN, ect.[sic]) either to inside the "carve out" category or close to it? If not (as I suspect) why do you think that is? I mean there would be a lot of benefits to the party not just for the nomination but also the general election.

The simplest answer is "I don't know."

However, that is mainly because I'm iffy about the word "movement". Is there any movement? No, but there are factions/people within the decision-making bodies in both the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee that have voiced or seemed supportive of such ideas (albeit more for selfish, state-specific reasons rather than for reasons of general election electoral benefits). Beyond that, though, I don't know. But I do have a few educated/informed impressions.

The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee mostly punted -- and rightly so with an incumbent seeking re-election¹ -- on rules changes in 2010. The overwhelming sentiment that prevailed in the Washington meeting that FHQ attended was that no one on the committee wanted to rock the boat. There was, as I'm sure there inevitably is at these things, some brief discussion of the early states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. I say that there are inevitably discussions along these lines, but I left with the feeling that this was among the least contentious, shallowest dives into the question of early states in quite a while. Some members harped on the idea of reshuffling the deck at the front of the calendar, but that went nowhere. What did move the needle ever so slightly among the group or at least enough among them was a process similar to what guided the commission that tweaked the Democratic delegate selection rules prior to 2008. This was the group that essentially held auditions for states that wanted to move into the, what the Democrats call, pre-window period. This was the point at which Nevada and South Carolina were added to the mix. The Rules and Bylaws Committee left it at that in 2010; open the early calendar up to a couple of additional states from among a group that applies.

If I had to guess now, I would say that Florida and Michigan have a leg up on the competition. Now, that's counterintuitive, right? It was after all four short years ago that Florida and Michigan threatened to rip the Democratic Party apart over how both states' delegates would be counted. But the simple truth of the matter is that both are already there. That is almost more important than the "Hey, those two states could be swing states in the general election" argument. This is a big deal: being able to move the primary or caucus. Florida will likely be there regardless. It does not seem likely that the Florida legislature will change hands -- moving from Republican control to Democratic -- any time within the 2012-15 window which means that about two-thirds of the date-setting process will rest with the Republicans.² Unless the RNC comes up with a penalty that actually deters rogue states from scheduling primaries out of compliance with the national party delegate selection rules, Florida is very likely to go early again. Republican actors in the state are very serious -- it seems -- to make Florida the fifth contest at the latest on the calendar. Is there any sense in potentially re-fighting 2008/Florida again? I wouldn't think so. The Michigan primary is already scheduled, according to state law, for the fourth Tuesday in February.  Again, why fight it?

The one wildcard to keep an eye on Arizona. The Arizona primary is already scheduled for the same date as the Michigan primary and the law there adds the flexibility for the governor to shift the date up to an earlier date. That is a problem for the, in this case, Democrats (...but the Republicans too). There will have to be some new sanctions in place to dissuade Arizona from additional moves.³ What works against Arizona is that "the West" is already represented by Nevada. Florida fills the "big state" role. Michigan is the "blue collar" or "labor" or "midwestern" state. Arizona has no such similar role. But it can argue that it might be electorally important to the party in the general election in the future.

--
On the Republican side, there was little discussion of overturning the early calendar apple cart in the Scottsdale RNC meeting recently. Additionally, there was no talk -- at least that I heard -- of putting together a commission to re-examine the RNC delegate selection rules outside of the convention as was the case with the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee (2009-10). This was the first, and perhaps only, foray the party has or will make into the midstream delegate rules changing arena in the post-reform era.

But the RNC is faced with a similar quandary to what the Democrats will encounter: How to keep states in line, or more to the point from breaking in line? That is the key question for both parties. The RNC, I think, realizes that the same three states -- Arizona, Florida and Michigan -- present it with a certain immovable object problem; one that cannot be remedied without some form of actual deterrent.⁴ What that penalty is, though, is unknown as of now, but I'm sure will be discussed in the months leading up to the Tampa convention.

--
Will there be additions to the carve out states in 2016? I think that is a safe bet at this time? Will those additions make sense in terms of why they were added? Sure. States will be added mostly because the alternative of not adding them is counterproductive to the parties. Are the states best positioned to take advantage of those new carve out spots potentially important in a general election for both parties? Coincidentally enough, yes, but only coincidentally enough. If the parties wanted to actually confront such a coordination problem (putting together with states and state parties a primary calendar that paid electoral dividends in November) on their own, they would be hard-pressed to muster the willingness much less the ability to actually pull that off.

Uphill sledding...

--
I should take a moment to mention that I will be taking part in a workshop at the Harvard Institute of Politics in May that will bring together folks from the Rules Committees in both major parties in addition to folks from the National Association of Secretaries of State and National Conference of State Legislatures. Selfishly, I hope to get a better picture on what is happening in both parties concerning the rules for 2016, but I also hope a productive dialog is started/continued on the nomination process and the limit to which it can in reality be reformed given all the competing interests.

--
¹ Folks have been persuasive in arguing that if a party is going to make changes, the best time -- or the time with the least number of potential conflicts within a party -- is when the stakes are low. You know, when a reasonably popular incumbent is seeking re-election; an incumbent who has a party rallying behind him like Obama had in 2010 and has now.

² State law now gives the speaker of the Florida House, the president of the Florida Senate and the governor three selections each to the committee that sets the date. If Governor Scott is not re-elected in 2014, Democrats will be able to muster four selections to the committee. No one member-naming authority can name more than two members of his or her own party to the committee. The speaker and the president would have to name two Democrats and the presumed Democratic governor would name two additional Democrats. But that is just four out of nine slots; not enough for Democrats to gain control of the process.

³ Of course, it should be noted that the Democratic Party has for the last two cycles now had a sanction on the books that penalizes not only the states for going to early, but any candidates who campaign in violating states as well. States move up for attention and if that attention is affected by candidates/media not showing up, then there is little utility in moving forward. ...or at least that will be the test in 2016 should the Democrats stand pat with their current penalties regime.

⁴ The same is true of some of these non-binding caucus states that have been able to skirt Republican rules most noticeably in 2012 (...but the issue was around in 2008 too). That is a different story or one for a different time anyway.

Recent Posts:
Question Time

Iowa GOP considers new rule for close caucuses 

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


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

Question Time

For some time I have admired -- and totally wanted to rip off -- the Question Day posts that Bernstein does on occasion. To this point, I had neither the time or inclination to do so. But the combination of the desire to try out the format and the influx of good questions via comments or email this week, I think, has pushed me over the edge.

In a nod to Question Time in the British House of Commons (and to acknowledge the fact that today is looking crazy time-wise), I'm going to field (good, quality¹) questions and spread the answers out over more than just today. I've already got three really good questions with which I definitely want to deal,² but if you have any others questions feel free to drop in in the comments section below or via Twitter under the hashtag, #fhqquestiontime.

--
¹ Seriously, keep it substantive, folks.

² To avoid overlap, I already have and plan to answer questions concerning:

• Ron Paul's delegate strategy (and the convention)
• Turnout in upcoming primaries
• The status of Rick Santorum's delegates (post-suspension)

Recent Posts:
Iowa GOP considers new rule for close caucuses 

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 


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

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.