2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Idaho

This is the seventeenth 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.


IDAHO

New to the caucus format in 2012, Idaho Republicans have devised perhaps the strangest -- or at least a first glance the one with the highest learning curve -- delegate selection process of the cycle.² [That's saying something.] But let's have a quick glance at how the rules for allocating the 32 delegates in the Gem state work.

First of all, the caucus meetings across Idaho today are binding in the same way that Nevada was back at the beginning of February; a departure from the series of non-binding contests we have witnessed in most caucus states thus far. But the allocation of the delegates is slightly more involved than the process in Nevada. [Yes, I hope the vote tabulation will at least go quicker, too. It should and here's why...] The process is more involved because the Idaho Republican Party appears to be utilizing a multi-round vote within each county. Each time I review the rules FHQ flashes back to Super Tuesday 2008's first contest -- the West Virginia Republican state convention -- where similar rules were in place. But that was a statewide meeting. What Idaho is attempting to pull off this evening is a series of multi-round votes on the county level.

Basically, this is a series of runoff votes. If a fictitious precinct #1 has a vote that places Romney first then, Santorum, Paul and Gingrich, then Gingrich would be eliminated (along with any other candidate below the 15% threshold). A second vote would then be held  -- among the same group of original voters (The Gingrich voters would not have to sit the vote out.) -- unless the first place finisher had received a majority on the initial vote. For this exercise, let's assume that Romney did not receive a majority and will face Santorum and Paul in the second round of voting. Well, suddenly, those Gingrich voters -- if there are reasonably sizable number of them -- are potentially significant in the second and any subsequent vote.

[ASIDE: Recall that Romney led after the initial vote in the West Virginia convention in 2008, but because third place finisher McCain threw his voters toward second place finisher Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor emerged victorious from the Mountain state.]

Assuming Gingrich voters line up with Santorum voters in that second vote, one could foresee a Santorum, Romney, Paul finish or even a Santorum, Paul, Romney finish depending on the number of Gingrich and Paul supporters. If Santorum doesn't win with a majority in that second vote -- again, in this scenario -- then Romney could potentially be eliminated on then at this make-believe precinct. How does that procede to the next subsequent and decisive vote between Santorum and Paul? Where do those Romney voters go?

That is a great question and one that will likely depend on turnout this evening. If the LDS population in Idaho really turns out for Romney, it may be enough to get him through to the final vote depending on the area of the state.

But think about this for a minute. Imagine this taking place in precincts across Idaho. It is just like how Iowa Democrats caucus but with that added dimension that if a candidate can emerge from all of these meetings with a majority of the vote, then he can claim all 32 of Idaho's delegates.³ Now, FHQ does not purport to know what will happen or if a winner-take-all allocation is even possible, but this will be a fun one to watch. If no candidate breaks the 50% barrier statewide, then the allocation is proportional based on those candidates who made it to the final vote on the precinct level (aggregated across the state).

If that winner-take-all allocation is triggered, then Idaho quickly becomes a much more important delegate prize -- likely the largest behind only Virginia and maybe Oklahoma or Georgia depending on the margin of victory for the winner in each.

--
Idaho delegate breakdown:

• 32 total delegates
• 23 at-large delegates
• 6 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates 

The Idaho Republican Party makes this slightly more complicated by adding another distinction. If the winner-take-all provision⁴ is not triggered by one candidate receiving a majority of the vote, then there is an 80/20 split in how the delegates are allocated. The candidates essentially file with the Idaho Republican party a slate of delegates. If the winner-take-all provision is not triggered then 80% of the delegates will be selected from these candidate lists of delegates in proportion to the results at the county level (weighted and aggregated). The remaining 20% of delegates are selected by the Nominations Committee of the Idaho Republican Party Convention. This is also done in proportion to the county results, weighted at the county level and aggregated. This 20% is pledged to a particular candidate. Since the 80% is from slates provided by the candidates, it is safe to assume that they are also pledged to the candidate who selected them.

All of this is made a lot easier if one candidate clears the 50% barrier statewide and claims all 32 delegates.

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

² The IDGOP's rules for delegate selection:

ID Rules Pertaining to Caucus Delegate Selection by frontloading_hq

³ Iowa Democrats also eliminate candidates who don't meet the 15% viability threshold instead of just eliminating the lowest vote-getter.

⁴ See the final paragraph of the IDGOP's FAQ on the caucuses for this rule.

Recent Posts:
Goodbye Idaho Presidential Primary

Santorum Can't Get to 1144

The (Delegate) Keys to Super Tuesday

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Georgia

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

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

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


GEORGIA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Alaska

Romney Still Ahead in Wyoming Precinct Caucus Straw Poll Count

Patterns in the Republican Primaries?

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Alaska

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

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

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


ALASKA

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

Not so fast.

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

As the Alaska Republican Party states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Patterns in the Republican Primaries?

On the Nature of 2012 RNC Rules Changes

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Wyoming

This is the fourteenth 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.


WYOMING

Just yesterday FHQ lamented the fact that for most of the caucus states to have held precinct meetings thus far the rules have been largely consistent (non-binding, no direct allocation of delegates, etc.) across states. In Wyoming, however, we have a caucus/convention system with a different set of rules worth examining in some detail.

Quietly over the last two weeks, there have been precinct caucus meetings throughout the Equality state; caucus meetings that have held non-binding straw poll votes. This is similar to what has gone on in other caucus states, but differs from the plan used by Wyoming Republicans in 2008. Four years ago, the party began its convention process with county conventions from which approximately half of the state's delegates to the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota were directly chosen. In 2012, however, the state party shifted back the county conventions from January 5, 2008 to  Super Tuesday (through March 10). The party added another layer to the process, though, tacking the straw poll on to the precinct meetings before the county conventions as well.² Those precinct meetings -- some of which ended up being county-wide meetings³ -- were to be held no more than 25 days and no less than 10 days prior to the point at which the county meeting is scheduled. Since the county meetings are scheduled for a window from March 6-10 that left a window for precinct meetings of February 9-29.⁴

A certain number of delegates -- a number designated by the county party but no less than two total delegates per precinct -- from each precinct are chosen to attend the county convention meetings. That delegate selection is conducted in addition to the non-binding straw poll vote that is being held at the precinct level. Again, once the process gets to the county level is the point at which national convention delegate selection begins to occur.

Here is the breakdown of Wyoming Republican delegates to the Republican National Convention:

• 29 total delegates
• 3 congressional district delegates
• 23 at-large delegates
• 3 automatic delegates
• All delegates attend the national convention technically unbound, though, it is up to each delegate to decide to endorse a particular candidate ahead of time.

Note that FHQ did not discuss how those delegates were allocated (as in other similar posts in this series). That is mainly because the delegate selection is handled differently than most other caucus states. The congressional district delegates are not chosen at a congressional district convention because the state is its own lone congressional district. Similarly, not all of the at-large delegates are chosen at the state convention as in most other caucus state conventions. Instead, the Wyoming Republican Party  treats its counties -- in some sense -- like many other states treat their congressional districts. Wyoming, then, has what could be called county delegates and at-large delegates.

How does this work?

Well, there are 23 counties in Wyoming. Of those 23, 22 are placed into pairs.⁵ The remaining county, Laramie County, is a super county. In practice, Laramie County choses both a delegate to the national convention and an alternate delegate. For the paired counties, one of the pair choses a delegate while the other county in the pair chooses an alternate delegate. These pairs have previously -- as in across prior cycles -- been set and rotate within the pair the delegate/alternate distinction from cycle to cycle. The county pairs are the same as they were in 2008, but the counties that selected delegates to the convention in 2008 will be choosing alternates in 2012. That means that the counties that selected alternates in 2008 are now selecting delegates in 2012.

Confused yet?

Don't be. All this means is that 11 of the 22 paired counties will directly choose on March 6-10 one delegate to attend the national convention. In addition, Laramie County will choose a delegate as well making 12 county delegates. The remaining 14 delegates -- at-large delegates -- are chosen by and from among those delegates chosen at the county level to move on to the state convention. There is no binding mechanism at any point of this process to ensure that there is, for instance, a proportional or winner-take-all allocation of precinct delegates to the county level or county delegates to the state level.

In summary, then, while the precinct caucuses have been going on quietly throughout this gap in the February portion of the presidential primary calendar, the process -- while staggered -- has been much like what has been witnessed in Iowa or Minnesota or Colorado or Maine. Wyoming Republicans will, however, turn quite quickly around and in early March actually be selecting delegates to attend to the national convention. That will happen at the district level in those other caucus states, but not nearly so fast as what is happening in Wyoming. The state convention will complete the process in April.

NOTE: FHQ will have more later on the votes already cast in non-binding presidential preference straw poll that has been going on since February 11 (the same date as the Maine caucuses two weeks ago).

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

² The precinct caucuses during the 2008 cycle actually took place in 2007 but with no straw poll.

³ Most of the precinct meetings were county-wide affairs, but a few counties broke the process up in to smaller subunits. For most of these precinct caucuses, then, the designation is precinct in name only.  The majority were county meetings held before the county convention.

⁴ The earliest precinct caucus date (February 9) is 25 days before the earliest county convention date (March 6) and the latest precinct caucus date (February 29) allowed is 10 days before the latest county convention date (March 10).

⁵ Those pairs of counties can be viewed in this memo on straw poll procedures distributed to the county parties by the Wyoming Republican Party in January:
Wyoming GOP Straw Poll Guidelines 1.2.12


Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Washington State

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Arizona

Missouri Republicans Will Caucus Both Before and After March 17

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Washington State

This is the thirteenth 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.


WASHINGTON

A few times in describing the delegate selection process in Republican caucus states FHQ has bemoaned the fact that often such an effort becomes an exercise in stating, "Just look back at Iowa." There is certainly some truth to that: a non-binding precinct-level caucus straw poll vote is taken with little or no discernible direct impact on the actual delegate selection process.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

So, yes, Washington Republicans on March 3 will hold precinct caucuses. And yes, the party will hold a non-binding presidential preference straw poll vote -- taken immediately when caucusgoers sign in at their caucus site -- that will have no direct bearing on the ultimate delegate selection process.² In fact, having signed in and cast their straw poll vote immediately, caucusgoers will have the option of just turning right back around and heading home. They will also have the alternative option -- an option the party is urging caucusgoers toward -- of sticking around for the delegate selection vote that "actually counts".

This is where it is important what the party and its caucus volunteers do at caucus sites across the state on March 3. Will voters be urged by the party/volunteers to stick around for the delegate selection vote or will that be left unsaid and left up to the candidates organizations to ensure? That's a potentially important question. The difference is mainly in the fact that a prompt is more likely to lessen the sort of ballot roll-off witnessed in previous caucuses where people will vote in the "up-ballot" straw poll but drop out on the "down-ballot" delegate selection vote. With a prompt, Santorum and Gingrich supporters may be more likely to linger. Prompt-less, the advantage would have to go to Ron Paul and his supporters and the Romney folks to the extent they have and are organizing in Washington.

A few notes on the Washington caucuses:
1) This is an open caucus. There is no party registration in Washington, so independents and Democrats are free to participate.
2) Though FHQ has said it a number of times, there are few if any delegate allocation rules changes in the states prior to Super Tuesday relative to their rules in 2008. Nevada bound their delegates based on the precinct caucuses -- a change from 2008. Washington state has similarly had a slight change in its delegate allocation in 2012. In 2008, the party split the allocation across both a primary and a caucus. But because the Washington state legislature canceled the 2012 presidential primary in its session last year, the delegate allocation will be handled solely through the caucus in 2012. The impact is that overall participation will likely be down, though with the absence of the primary, caucus attendance may be up relative to four years ago.
3) It is unclear to FHQ -- but perhaps our Washington Republican readers can weigh in -- as to whether there is other party business to be conducted at the precinct caucuses other than the selection of delegates after the straw poll vote. The time commitment required of caucusgoers matters. Supporter attrition following straw poll votes is probably the most underreported rules-based aspect of this race currently.

Washington Republican delegate snapshot:

• 43 total delegates
• 10 at-large delegates selected by the state convention delegates based on their stated presidential preference at the state convention.
• 30 congressional district delegates selected by the district convention delegates based on their stated presidential preference at the district conventions.
• 3 automatic delegates who remain unbound regardless of the outcome of the precinct-level straw poll vote or the state/district convention votes. 

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

² Incidentally, I have never been a fan of the Washington State Republican Party website. It is awful from my perspective because there is nothing on there about rules or the party constitution. But credit where credit is due: The WSRP has a fabulous Tumblr site for the 2012 caucuses. I am particularly pleased with the this answer in their Q&A in the FAQ:

Is my vote going to be made public?There are two parts to the caucus. When you sign in, you will be asked to state your presidential preference - this will be considered your vote for the presidential straw poll. This vote will be a public vote in your caucus but it will not be made available to the general public. Then at the caucus you will undertake the important business of electing delegates. This is your vote that actually counts. The Straw poll is just a snapshot of who caucus attendees support, but the ultimate determiner of which candidates wins Washington’s delegates will be the delegates elected at the precincts caucuses. [emphasis FHQ's]

Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Arizona

Missouri Republicans Will Caucus Both Before and After March 17

A Very Rough Estimate of the Republican Delegate Math Ahead, Part Two

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Arizona

This is the twelfth 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.


ARIZONA

Remember Florida over three weeks ago? Well, in Arizona on Tuesday, February 28 we will all bear witness to Florida, part II. 

...at least in some way, shape or form. 

Arizona, like Florida, has broken the Republican National Committee rules on 2012 delegate selection by holding a binding nominating contest before the first Tuesday in March. Arizona, like Florida, has also broken those same rules in terms of how the Republican Party in the Grand Canyon state will allocate their delegates to the national convention in Tampa. Arizona, like Florida, was also sanctioned for the first violation -- losing half the delegation for a primary too early by RNC standards -- but was not further penalized for maintaining the same (and in violation) winner-take-all formula Arizona Republicans have utilized in the past.²

Now, to be clear, Arizona had a delegation of 58 cut in half and will allocate 29 delegates to the winner of the statewide vote in the presidential preference election (No, it isn't a primary, though it operates like one.) on Tuesday. The end result is the same as it was in Florida: the winner takes all of the delegates. The process behind the ultimate decision to remain winner-take-all, however, was different in Arizona. As you will recall, the Florida delegate allocation has traditionally been winner-take-all with the at-large delegates being allocated to the statewide winner and the congressional district delegates being allocated to the winner of each of the congressional districts. But the state party added a clause to its delegate selection rules prior to the 2008 cycle that allowed the state party chair the latitude, in the event of sanctions from the national party, to make all of the remaining delegates at-large and thus winner-take-all based on the statewide vote. 

There is no similar clause in the Arizona Republican Party rules. The customary method of allocating delegates in the Grand Canyon state has been to allocate all of the delegates -- both at-large and congressional district delegates -- on a winner-take-all basis based on the statewide vote in the preference election. Again, the practical implication of the differences across Florida and Arizona is effectively nil. But the means to the end were different.

Yet, where this may matter is when and [this is a BIG] if there are similar threats by the three runners-up in the race to challenge the allocation method in Arizona as in Florida. Rule 10 of the Republican Party of Florida rules at least gives the party something of a leg to stand on in any argument over a challenge to the winner-take-all allocation of the delegates in the Sunshine state. It establishes that there is a precedent of allocating -- under normal, unpenalized circumstances -- delegates in a way that bifurcates the delegates; splits them into at-large and district delegates. In that situation, Florida Republicans could make the case to allocate only the at-large delegates proportionally,³ thus keeping Florida from having all of its delegates proportionally allocated. 

Arizona Republicans have no similar precedent to fall back on. A stronger case could be made by those challenging any winner-take-all method of allocation that the 29 delegates by strictly proportionally allocated without having made a distinction between at-large and congressional district delegates. 

That being said, the RNC has already signaled that such challenges are very likely to go nowhere. Part of that is borne out by the fact that the RNC is thinking/hoping the nomination process has resolved itself and these delegate questions are moot. FHQ is inclined to follow that line of thought. But IF this gets ugly and the process is forced into a contested convention, these sorts of questions are going to arise. The strong hunch here is that the RNC would likely not differentiate between Florida and Arizona if both have their delegate allocation challenged. The national party -- in a challenge setting -- is likely to proscribe the same remedy in both cases as opposed to doling out different solutions for each. 

The take home message is that while on the surface Arizona and Florida look alike, there are some subtle differences to note after a deeper look at the rules in each state. 

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

² FHQ should also note that, as in Florida, the Romney campaign has stressed banking early votes in Arizona 

³ The at-large delegates are the only delegates in which it is mandated by the RNC that have to be allocated proportionally absent a minimum 50% threshold. 

Recent Posts:
Missouri Republicans Will Caucus Both Before and After March 17

A Very Rough Estimate of the Republican Delegate Math Ahead, Part Two

Race to 1144: Maine Republican Caucuses (Updated Count)

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: New York

This is the eleventh 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.


NEW YORK

Normally, FHQ would not put the cart before the horse like this and jump not only a description of the Arizona delegate selection process, but the processes in the March and most of the April primary and caucus states as well. Yet, for New York, a blow-by-blow account of the delegate selection there is necessary now for one particularly pertinent reason. While most of us were glued to a kind of ho-hum night of Florida primary returns on January 31, a deadline came and went that set in stone the Republican delegate selection process in the Empire state. Since no congressional district boundaries had been settled upon by the New York legislature that had the effect of triggering the enactment of one of two delegate selection plans the New York Republican Party had submitted to the RNC.

The rationale behind that boundary issue being relevant is that one delegate selection plan operated under what would have been a new 27 seat (congressional district) map while the latter -- the safety plan -- accounted for the possibility that a deal on the districts could not be reached. That plan was based on the old 29 seat map that existed before the 2010 census reapportionment.

And what does that mean for the New York primary, the delegate selection there and the race for the Republican nomination?

The big differences are:

1. Instead of having 3 delegates per congressional district, under the 29 seat plan that was triggered on January 31, there are 2 delegates per congressional district. 
2. Importantly, that reduces the total congressional district delegates from 81 to 58, which in turn, increases the number of total at-large delegates from 11 to 34. 

Now, what emerges from this is that the balance between winner-take-all and proportional allocation shifts. Those congressional district delegates will be allocated winner-take-all based on the vote in each of the 29 existing congressional districts, but the at-large delegates will be proportionally allocated if no candidate receives over 50% of the vote statewide. Again, April 24 is a long way off and it is a fool's errand to assume that a volatile race won't in some ways continue to fluctuate between now and then. Things will likely remain competitive barring a sudden string of victories by one candidate, but it is entirely possible that a candidate will be well-positioned to capture greater than 50% of the statewide vote in New York in late April. It is also entirely possible that the conditional winner-take-all/proportional allocation of those 34 (rather than 11) at-large delegates could be consequential depending on the dynamics of the race -- and the delegate count -- at that time.²

There is one other note to make concerning New York and the state Republican Party method of delegate allocation in 2012. The primary moved back from February to April, and contrary to what the rules would seemingly allow, shifted from a straight winner-take-all primary (see Florida) in 2008 to a system that divided the allocation of delegates across congressional districts (still winner-take-all by district) and at-large delegates (conditional winner-take-all/proportional based on the statewide vote). The point is that despite being free to maintain the winner-take-all rules after April 1, the New York Republican Party opted to shift in a slightly more proportional direction. Part of this is explained by the fact that the party made the decision on delegate allocation -- the overall method -- early in 2011 before the legislature moved the primary from February to April. However, the legislation was signed well in advance of when the rules needed be finalized in the eyes of the RNC (October 1, 2011), so at least in theory a change back to straight winner-take-all allocation could have been made but was not.

Let's close with a look at the New York GOP delegate allocation plan:

• 58 congressional district delegates (2 per each of the existing 29 congressional districts -- unchanged since census reapportionment): Delegates will be allocated winner-take-all based on the vote within each congressional district.
• 34 at-large delegates: Delegates will be allocated proportionally based on each candidate's share of the statewide vote unless one candidate clears the 50% share of the vote threshold. In that event, the 34 delegates will be allocated winner-take-all.
• 3 automatic delegates: Delegates are unbound and free to endorse any candidate.

Again, the 29 congressional district plan is potentially slightly more proportional than the 27 seat version. With only two delegates in each congressional district the remainder -- thus at-large delegates -- are greater in number in the former than in the latter.

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

² It would most likely be consequential in terms of the ongoing tabulation of the delegates, but not in the overall delegate count at the end of primary season. The overall Democratic delegate count in 2008 for instance gave Obama a more than 200 delegate lead by even some of the more conservative estimates.

Recent Posts:
April Primary Given the Heave Ho in Texas


2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Michigan


Bill Would Repeal Arizona Presidential Primary

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Michigan

This is the tenth 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.


MICHIGAN

One of the most fascinating aspects of this presidential primary cycle -- to FHQ anyway -- has been the ways in which the early and non-compliant states have adapted their regular delegate selection rules to their after-penalty delegate apportionment from the Republican National Committee. Penalized states are left to their own devices to devise an altered formula that differs from the usual three delegates per congressional district and an n number of at-large delegates alignment. South Carolina, for instance, reduced the per-district delegate count from three to two (14 of 25 delegates) and designated the remaining 11 delegates at-large. Additionally, FHQ speculated that the Republican Party of Florida could do something similar if forced to go "proportional". However, in order not to exceed the Sunshine state at-large delegate total, the party would have to reduce the number of delegates per each of the 27 districts to one with the remaining 23 (out of 50) delegates being at-large.

Michigan is another early primary state carrying a penalized delegation that has to rejigger its delegate allocation to account for the changes. The original plan adopted by the Michigan GOP -- the one with 59 total delegates -- looked like this:

• 42 congressional district delegates (3 in each of the 14 congressional districts in the Great Lakes state): allocated winner-take-all based on the congressional district vote
• 14 at-large delegates: allocated proportionally to candidates surpassing 15% of the statewide vote
• 3 automatic delegates: free to choose whomever.

But that is not what the plan looks like anymore. According to Michigan Republican Party Communications Director, Matt Frendewey, the party will plan on sending the original 59 delegates to the Tampa convention, but with the knowledge that only 30 will be recognized. For all intents and purposes, then, the party is going ahead with its original delegate selection plan. However, the question remains: How are those 30 chosen out of the 59?

According to the updated Michigan Republican Party delegate rules forwarded to FHQ by Neil King at the Wall Street Journal it looks like this:

• 28 congressional district delegates (2 per each of the 14 districts): allocated winner-take-all based on the vote in the congressional district
• 2 at-large delegates: allocated winner-take-all²
• 0 automatic delegates: Penalized states lose their automatic delegates.

[SIDE NOTE: The alternative, FHQ supposes, could have apportioned 1 delegate in each congressional district with the remaining 15 delegates being at-large. That would have tipped the balance toward the at-large total -- actually increasing it by one over the original plan. That also would have made over half of the state's delegates proportional.]

Now, this has a couple of significant implications:

1. The Michigan Republican Party completely gutted its at-large delegate total and kind of sort of skirted the proportionality requirement in the process. Hey, it is hard to allocate two delegates proportionally.
2. With such a reduced at-large total, the real battle in the Great Lakes state is not statewide, but from congressional district to congressional district. Strategically, the, if you're Mitt Romney or a Romney-aligned super PAC, you focus on the districts in and around the Detroit area and perhaps cede the rest of the state to Santorum. And if you're the Santorum camp you try and gobble up as much of the remainder as you can and hope to crack into those Detroit areas. 

The bottom line is that barring an overwhelming victory for one candidate in Michigan, the delegate margin is very likely to be close coming out of the Great Lakes state on February 28. In any event, all the attention there should be placed not on the statewide race, but on how things are progressing on the congressional district level. That is where the action will be.

*A tip of the cap to Neil King at the Wall Street Journal for passing along the Michigan rules and to Matt Frendewey at the Michigan GOP for clarifying them.

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

² The rules state that the statewide winner receives the two at-large delegates, but MIGOP's Frendewey conceded that if the top two voter-getters in the statewide vote over 15% -- the threshold required to receive any at-large delegates -- are sufficiently close in the final results, then the allocation of those two delegates would be proportional; each candidate getting one delegate.

Recent Posts:
Bill Would Repeal Arizona Presidential Primary

No Conspiracy in Maine

Race to 1144: Maine Caucuses

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Missouri

This is the 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.


MISSOURI

Missouri Republicans will caucus on March 17. It will be the first time since 1996 that the party has held caucuses as a means of allocating delegates to the national convention instead of a primary. Note that FHQ will spend very little time discussing the non-binding primary that is taking place this evening. In the delegate count, it is meaningless as compared to the other two contests in Colorado and Minnesota today. The latter two bear the distinction of having voters -- caucusgoers -- actually cast votes in a process that will ultimately choose delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa.

[The very short version of why the primary became non-binding and the caucus came to be is that a deep division within the Republicans in the majority in both houses of the Missouri General Assembly over whether to maintain a non-compliant February primary or move back to a compliant March primary kept the caucuses in both the state House and Senate at loggerheads all year in 2011. The one bill they were able to pass -- to move the primary to March 6 -- also contained a provision that stripped Governor Jay Nixon (D) of the appointment power that allows the Missouri governor the ability to fill vacancies to statewide office. That bill got a veto and the special session efforts thereafter to either move the primary back or cancel the primary outright failed. That was the very short version!?! As short as I could make it. For the full story click on the "Missouri" label here or at the bottom of the post and scroll down, down, down through all of the 2011 Missouri posts.]

February diversion aside, then, how exactly will the Missouri Republican caucuses work next month? Well, it won't be unlike what has happened in Colorado and Minnesota tonight. Missouri Republicans were apportioned 52 delegates by the Republican National Committee. Here is how those delegates breakdown and how they are allocated to the convention in Tampa:²

• 25 at-large delegates: At-large delegates will be selected at the Missouri Republican state convention on June 1-2. As has been the case in most of the other caucus states thus far with the exception of Nevada, there are no rules dictating the method in which delegates are selected from one step of the process to the next. There is no proportional. There is no winner-take-all. There may be some of each in some precincts with the former more likely in competitive precincts and the latter more prevalent in less competitive precincts or in precincts where caucusgoers committed to one candidate or another stick around not only for the presidential preference straw poll vote but for the actual selection of delegates to the county level as well. Unlike what has happened in Iowa or Colorado, the at-large delegates in Missouri are bound for one ballot at the national convention to the candidate they pledged to at the state convention.
• 24 congressional district delegates: Similarly, the congressional district delegates -- 3 for each of the 8 Missouri congressional districts -- are allocated and pledged based on the selection during the April 21 congressional caucuses across the Show Me state. 
• 3 automatic delegates: The Missouri Republican call for convention also contains two other lines about the actions to be taken at the state convention relevant to the automatic delegates from the state: 1) "Pledging all delegates and alternates to support a Republican Presidential Candidate as provided in this Call to Convention." and 2) "Electing a man and a woman to serve as members of the Republican National Committee from the state of Missouri." What that means is that all the delegates will be bound and that two of the automatic delegates -- the national committeeman and national committeewoman will be elected at the state convention. The only possibility -- and FHQ isn't really suggesting that this is anything remotely approaching a reality -- for a free agent is the state party chairman and that position would seemingly be covered by the binding mechanism described above. [What party chair would cross the rules and an entire convention?]

The interesting thing about all of these non-binding precinct caucus states moving forward is going to be not when the precinct caucuses are but when the district and state conventions are and more importantly what the dynamics of the race are at those times. Colorado has a very early state convention in April and the race could be ongoing at that point. This is far different than the caucus situation on the Democratic side of the ledger where proportionality is rigorously observed throughout the process with some rounding error at the margins that may differ from the precinct level results. That layer is missing on the Republican side. There is no guide for how this will progress once the later stages of the caucus process take place. In the hyper-frontloaded era (200-2008), and perhaps even stretching back into the 1990s, the formula in Republican caucus states was fairly simple: hold a non-binding precinct caucus and then line up behind the presumptive nominee at the district or state convention when all the other candidates have withdrawn from the race or no longer remain viable (if they were to begin with). 2012 is different. Mock all you like, but there is a reason the Paul folks are competing in these caucuses. No, they may not be winning the straw poll votes on presidential preference, but as Dr. Paul himself said this evening, they are winning the votes to push Paul delegates on to the next rounds. Throw in some Santorum delegates and things might be interesting at some of these district and state conventions. The more competitive it ends up being the more likely the ultimate allocation is likely to be approximately proportionate to the precinct level vote.

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

² Below is the call to the Missouri Republican convention spelling out the rules of delegate allocation:
Missouri Republican 2012 Call to Convention

Recent Posts:

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Minnesota

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Colorado

Virginia House Passes Bill to Allow Write-Ins on Primary Ballot

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Minnesota

This is the 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.


MINNESOTA

It gets old typing "just see the Iowa post for how the delegate allocation works in caucus state X". Yet, with some variation from caucus state to caucus state, that really is pretty much how things are. That said, there are some noteworthy differences in how the caucus system works for Minnesota Republicans. The RNC apportioned 40 delegates (of the 2286 total delegates nationally) to Republicans in the Land of 10,000 Lakes. Here is how they break down:

• 13 at-large delegates: At-large delegates are selected at the Minnesota Republican Party state convention and according to the rules governing the delegate selection process in the party constitution may be bound for up to one ballot at the national convention.² The decision on whether to bind at-large delegates is made at the state convention on May 18-19.
• 24 congressional district delegates: Like Colorado and Iowa, the Minnesota congressional district delegates -- 3 in each of the 8 Minnesota congressional districts -- will be allocated at the congressional district conventions. None of these delegates are bound, but are selected from among the pool of delegates who are selected at the precinct, then county, then legislative district caucuses. Again, there is no direct transference of presidential preference from one step to the next, and there are no rules governing which delegates get chosen and how. Also, there is no requirement that there be either winner-take-all or proportional allocation at the precinct level and onward. It may ultimately end up that way, but it may be that those who are committed to staying long enough and/or are committed to being delegates get chosen to move to the next step in the process. [This is why any premature projection of delegates from these non-binding contests is so ridiculous, but I digress...] The bottom line is that there may some underlying presidential preference that emerges through the process -- the precinct caucus straw polls serve as a baseline -- but these congressional district delegates, and more than likely the at-large delegates will go to the Tampa convention unbound.
• 3 automatic delegates: The three automatic delegates are also technically unbound, but are free to endorse whomever they choose. To this point only one Minnesota automatic delegate, Jeff Johnson, has weighed in on the race. The Minnesota Republican National Committeeman has endorsed Newt Gingrich.

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

² The relevant section is in Article V, Section 5:

Election and Terms of Delegates.  

A. All state, Congressional District, BPOU, and Delegates and Alternates shall be elected in general election years and shall hold office for a term of two years or until their successors are elected, or upon adoption in their respective BPOU constitution, they may elect Delegates and Alternates to the Congressional District and state conventions annually in the same manner as provided in the general election year, and these Delegates and Alternates elected under this option shall hold office for a term of one year, or until their successors are duly elected.  

B. All affiliate Delegates and Alternates shall serve a two year term or until their successors are elected. Affiliate Delegates and Alternates shall not hold the same office for consecutive terms. An affiliate Delegate or Alternate may not be a regular party Delegate or Alternate to the same convention. Affiliate Delegates and Alternates to Congressional District conventions must reside in the Congressional District and must be elected by the affiliate members who reside in the Congressional District and will be legally qualified voters in the next general election. 

C. In compliance with the rules of the Republican National Convention, no Delegate or Alternate may be an automatic Delegate or Alternate. Each Delegate or Alternate must be elected by his/her respective convention. No Delegate to the Republican National Convention shall be bound by party rules or by state law to cast his/her vote for a particular candidate on any ballot at the convention except that the state convention may bind the Delegates whom it elects to the National Convention of the Republican Party on the first ballot to vote for a candidate for the office of President of the United States, unless they be released by said candidate.

Recent Posts:

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Colorado

Virginia House Passes Bill to Allow Write-Ins on Primary Ballot

Race to 1144: Nevada Caucuses

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