2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Maryland

This is the twenty-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.


MARYLAND

Read the Wisconsin delegate allocation memo? Well, in Maryland there is an almost carbon copy of the delegate allocation rules in the Badger state. The statewide winner receives all of the at-large delegates and the winner(s) in the congressional districts are awarded three delegates for each plurality win.² Fair enough, right?

Maryland delegate breakdown:

• 37 total delegates
• 10 at-large delegates
• 24 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

At-large allocation: Win the statewide vote (majority or plurality), win the 10 at-large delegates.

Congressional district allocation: Win the district (majority or plurality), win the 3 delegates from a district.

Automatic delegate allocation: As was the case in Wisconsin the Maryland Republican Party draws a distinction between congressional district delegates and everything else. Everything else -- statewide delegates and automatic delegates -- are considered at-large delegates and are, thus, allocated to the statewide victor. [See in particular Section 3 in the memo below.]

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

² Maryland Republican Party memo on delegate selection in the Old Line state:
2012 MD Republican Delegate Selection Plan

Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Washington, DC

Americans Elect and the Electoral College

Romney Turns the Tables on Santorum/Paul at North Dakota Republican Convention

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Washington, DC

This is the twenty-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.


WASHINGTON, DC

The wand that is the RNC delegate selection rules has been waved. April 1 has come and gone and the Republican nomination race is now firmly entrenched in the "states can choose to be winner-take-all" zone. Nevermind Arizona and Florida.² Those two rules-violators aside, the Republican Party in Washington, DC becomes the first "state" to officially -- and without sanction -- allocate all of their delegates to the winner by majority or plurality the the District's primary today.³

Washington, DC delegate breakdown:

• 19 total delegates
• 16 at-large delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

First of all, this completely takes the fun out of this exercise. The winner receives all of the delegates!?! That's all? C'mon. Give us some gray area, DC Republicans. FHQ's readers demand it.

At-large allocation: Well, the allocation of the at-large delegates is winner-take-all. Once the DC Board of Elections certifies the primary results, the slate of 16 delegates and 16 alternates submitted by the winning candidate becomes the bulk of the DC delegation to the Republican National Convention in Tampa. [Recall that Rick Santorum did not file a slate of delegates and is not even on the ballot in DC today.]

Automatic delegate allocation: And while the three automatic delegates are like the automatic delegates in most other states -- free to endorse/pledge to a candidate of their choosing at any point in the race -- there is some need for clarification as to who these folks are. If you took the time to scroll down and peruse the draft of the primary rules you will see that races for the national committeeman and national committeewoman are also on the primary ballot. That said, as Matt from Democratic Convention Watch informed FHQ via email, the newly elected RNC committee members from DC will not assume their positions until the Friday following the national convention. That means that both Anthony Parker and Betsy Werronen (pledged to Romney) will be delegates to the RNC convention. Neither is on the ballot today seeking reelection to the Republican National Committee.

Fun fact (Well, some may view it as fun.): Current DCGOP chair, Bob Kabel, is on the ballot today running for the post of Republican National Committeeman from DC.

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

² ...or Idaho and Puerto Rico. Am I right, Red White & Blue Fund?

³ DCGOP Rule II(G)(1) from a draft of the primary rules:

The Executive Director and/or Republican Board Member of the  DC Board of Elections shall certify the results of the Presidential Preference Primary to the DCRC's  Chairman. Upon such certification, the Chairman of the DCRC shall then certify to the Republican National Committee the elected slate of Delegates and Alternates pledged to the Presidential candidate who received the greatest number of votes at the Primary. [Emphasis FHQ's]

DCRC Draft 2012 Primary Plan

Recent Posts:
Americans Elect and the Electoral College

Romney Turns the Tables on Santorum/Paul at North Dakota Republican Convention

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Wisconsin

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Wisconsin

This is the twenty-seventh 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.


WISCONSIN

The state or Wisconsin represents the primary process' and this series' first foray into states not subject to the new proportionality requirement. It is the first state -- along with Maryland and Washington, DC -- to hold a contest following the April 1 proportionality cutoff. Before FHQ goes any further, it is worth noting that the future primary calendar landscape is not littered with a host of strictly winner-take-all states. It is not. In fact, the post-April 1 presidential primary calendar environment mimics the environment that has traditionally stretched across the whole calendar. It isn't that states are all winner-take-all, rather it is up to the states/state parties to decide how they want to allocate delegates. It can be winner-take-all, it can be proportional or it can be some hybrid of the two.

In the Badger state, the Republican Party of Wisconsin has maintained its typical method of delegate allocation; which is to say, something in between. Wisconsin will allocate its delegates in a winner-take-all fashion both statewide and in each of the eight congressional districts. A candidate winning a plurality of the vote statewide receives all of the at-large delegates and a candidate winning a plurality of the vote in a congressional district is entitled to the district's three delegates. In this way -- like the plans in both South Carolina and Michigan -- Wisconsin is not entirely winner-take-all since it allows for candidates other than the statewide winner to pick up some delegates if they manage a win in any of the eight congressional districts.

Wisconsin delegate breakdown:

• 42 total delegates
• 15 at-large delegates
• 24 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

Again, this is all fairly straightforward. Win a district and win that district's three delegates. That is how those 24 congressional district delegates are allocated. The rest of this is also simple enough with one exception: the automatic delegates. According to Article X, Section 2 of the Republican Party of Wisconsin constitution, there are three delegates apportioned to each congressional district and the remaining delegates are all at-large.² The question that arises from that is whether that applies to the automatic delegates as well. It would appear so according to the section cited above. However, automatic delegates are discussed in Section 6, but that language is copied almost verbatim from Rule 15(c)(11) of the RNC delegate selection rules. Of course, neither the Wisconsin rules nor the RNC rules indicate the way in which the automatic delegates are to be allocated. The RNC rule (15(c)(11)) refers to Rule 13(a)(2) which defines automatic delegates, but again, does not specify how they are to be allocated. That, it would seem, is a matter left up to the state parties, which in Wisconsin's case, brings it all full circle back to Section 2.

What that means is that all 42 delegates will be at stake in Tuesday's Wisconsin primary. That differs from the description of Wisconsin's delegate selection plan in the December 2011 memo on delegate selection from the RNC legal counsel office. That memo left the three automatic delegates unbound, but that does not jibe well with FHQ's reading of the Republican Party of Wisconsin's constitution.

...the section on delegate selection anyway.

--
NOTE: The statewide winner in Wisconsin will start off with at least an 18 delegate advantage and will  not improve on that margin only under the circumstances that another candidate wins more than four congressional districts. That would appear unlikely.

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

² Below is Article X (the section pertaining to national delegate selection) of the Republican Party of Wisconsin's constitution:

Article X - Selection of National Convention Delegates and Alternates 

The Executive Committee is empowered to regulate the rules in this Article but not alter them unless they fail to be in compliance with the Rules of the National Republican Party. 

SECTION 1. The total number of delegates and equal number of alternate delegates shall be those numbers fixed by the formulas set forth in the rules of each National Convention. 

SECTION 2. Of the total number fixed by Rule No. 1, three (3) district delegates and three (3) district alternate delegates shall be designated from the district of each Representative in the United States House of Representatives and the remainder shall be designated ―at large. 

SECTION 3. A candidate receiving a plurality of the votes in the Presidential Primary in any Congressional District is entitled to control the three (3) delegates and the three (3) alternate delegates from that district in all votes for nomination for President of the United States and Vice- President of the United States, unless the delegates and alternate delegates are released by the candidate or the candidate fails to receive at least one-third (1/3) of the total votes cast in any vote for nomination. 

SECTION 4. A candidate receiving a plurality of the statewide votes in the Presidential Primary is entitled to control all the delegates and alternate delegates designated ―At Large on all votes for nomination for President of the United States and Vice-President of the United States, unless the delegates and alternate delegates designated ―At Large are released by the candidate or the candidate fails to receive at least one-third (1/3) of the total votes cast in any vote for nomination. 

SECTION 5. After receiving the results of the Presidential Primary, each District Chairman, in consultation with his or her District Executive Committee and in consultation with the committee of the winning presidential candidate in that district, shall submit a list of no more than 20 or no less than 12 names to be considered by the candidate committee for the selection of their District delegates and alternate delegates. By March 9th, the candidate committee shall notify the respective District Chairmen which three from the list they wish to designate as delegates and which three from the list they wish to designate as alternate delegates. Giving due consideration to the candidate committee’s designations, the District Caucus shall elect three District delegates and three alternate District delegates from the originally submitted list. At-Large delegates and At-Large alternate delegates shall be selected by the committee of the candidate receiving a plurality of the statewide votes in the Presidential Primary, and a list of said delegates and alternate delegates shall be ratified by the State Executive Committee. It shall be understood that the candidate’s committee shall have final approval of the list of At-Large delegates and alternate delegates. All District and At-Large delegates and alternate delegates must conform to Section 7. The delegate selection process shall be completed no later than the second Saturday in May of the Presidential election year. 

SECTION 6. There shall be no automatic delegates nor alternate delegates to a National Convention who serve by virtue of party position or elective office, unless stipulated by RNC rules. 

SECTION 7. Both district and At-Large delegates and alternates must file an affidavit with the Republican Party of Wisconsin stating that they will abide by these rules and that they are qualified to represent the Republican Party of the State of Wisconsin by being a qualified voter and member in good standing of the Republican Party of their county since at least the date of their county’s caucus held in the Presidential election year. All affidavits must be received in the state party headquarters no later than 45 days prior to the opening day of the Republican National Convention or the office will be considered vacant and a replacement delegate or alternate will be selected per Section 8. 

SECTION 8. The Chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin shall fill any vacancies for District delegates and District alternate delegates in consultation with the District Chairman in whose district the considered replacement resides, and the appropriate presidential candidate committee. The Chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin shall fill any vacancies for At-Large delegates and At-Large alternate delegates in consultation with the committee of the candidate winning the statewide primary. The replacement of District or At-Large delegates or alternate must file an affidavit per Section 7 immediately upon accepting the office. 

SECTION 9. No preference shall be given in the delegate or alternate delegate selection process as to whether the delegate is a man or a woman.

Recent Posts:
These things are over sooner rather than later.

South Carolina House Moves to Safeguard Future Presidential Primary Calendar Position

Santorum Super PAC Doubles Down on Ludicrous Delegate Count Claim

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Louisiana

This is the twenty-sixth 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.


LOUISIANA

In Louisiana on Saturday we will finally have a state in the 2012 cycle that is allocating delegates based in part on a primary, but also in part on a caucus. We saw this in Texas on the Democratic side in 2008, but also in Washington and West Virginia four years ago on the Republican side. The two portions of the process operate independent of each other in terms of how the delegates are allocated. The pool of voters in the Saturday primary in Louisiana will not be the same group of congressional district caucusgoers (and state convention attendees) selecting the remaining delegates beginning in April (...but finalized in June at the state convention).

In any event the primary in Louisiana on Saturday kicks off the delegate selection process for Pelican state Republicans.

Louisiana delegate breakdown:

• 46 total delegates
• 25 at-large delegates
• 18 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

At-large allocation: Right off the bat, the delegate selection process is a little quirky. At stake in the primary on Saturday are the at-large delegates. Well, a portion of the at-large delegates are a stake anyway. Of the 25 at-large delegates, five are already slated as uncommitted. All that Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul are fighting over on Saturday, then, is 20 delegates. Those 20 delegates will be bound based on the vote in the primary. If one and only one candidate receives a greater than 25% share of the vote, then that candidate is entitled to his proportional share of those delegates while the rest remain uncommitted. If, however, no candidate is able to surpass the 25% threshold then all 20 delegates remain -- or become -- uncommitted.

Where the delegates allocation is likely to end up, though, is somewhere in between those two ends of the spectrum; with more than one candidate over the 25% threshold. If that is the case, then the candidates over the threshold will be allocated the delegates proportionally. But those candidates won't be allocated all 20 delegates between them. In some states we have witnessed rules that reallocate delegates that would have been bound to candidates under the threshold in a given state to the candidates who met or passed the barrier. For instance, Rick Santorum did not meet the 20% threshold statewide in Georgia to be eligible to receive any delegates. The delegates he would have been entitled to under strictly proportional rules were "reallocated" among Romney and Gingrich instead. Such as system is not obviously strictly proportional. [And mind you, this happens on the Democratic side as well.] This is in stark contrast to the proportional rules in Alaska where each candidate received a share of the delegates roughly proportional to his share of the presidential preference vote in the Alaska caucuses.

But Louisiana is different. Let's look at an example as a means of illustrating the point:

Assume Santorum receives 52% of the vote, Romney 26% and Gingrich and Paul split the remaining 22% evenly. That means that only Santorum and Romney are eligible for any of the 20 delegates at stake on Saturday. That would bind 10 delegates to Santorum and five delegates to Romney. Here is where the difference lies. Under a system like the one in Georgia described above, the other five (of 20) delegates would be allocated to Santorum and Romney; pushing Santorum to 13 delegates and Romney to 7. In an Alaska context, Gingrich and Paul would split those five delegates. However, in Louisiana, those five delegates go not to Romney and Santorum or Gingrich and Paul, but become uncommitted instead (see Rule 20.b of the Louisiana Republican Party Rules).² That would mean -- given the vote breakdown above -- that Santorum would claim 10 delegates, Romney 5 and the remaining five would be uncommitted. And remember, Louisiana has a total of 25 at-large delegates. Five started out uncommitted. 

Translation? If Romney and Santorum are the only candidates over 25%, they need to maximize their collective vote share to insure that the base 5 uncommitted delegates does not grow (by much). The higher their collective vote share, the lower the number of uncommitted at-large delegates.

Congressional district allocation: On April 28 will hold congressional district caucuses to begin the process of actually selecting the delegates who will be bound (or unbound) to candidates based on the primary vote. All delegates -- at-large and congressional district -- will be selected at the state convention in Shreveport on June 2, including the 18 congressional district delegates.

Automatic delegate allocation: The three Louisiana automatic delegates are unbound and free to endorse/pledge themselves to any candidate they prefer (at any time).

The only portion of the full 46 member delegation that will be bound to any candidate or candidates will be determined by the primary vote this weekend.

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

² Louisiana Republican Party delegate selection rules:
LAGOP 2012 Caucus and Convention Rules

Recent Posts:
August Presidential Primary Resurrected in Kentucky Legislation

Divining the Meaning of Illinois

Santorum Has Rule #40 Problems, Too

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Illinois

This is the twenty-fifth 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.


ILLINOIS

Since Cokie Roberts was on Morning Edition this morning hyping the impact of the new "proportional" rules in tomorrow's Illinois Republican primary, FHQ is of the opinion that it is incumbent upon us to, well, at the very least, lead from behind in setting the record straight.

The rules in the Illinois primary tomorrow are exactly the same as they were in the Land of Lincoln four years ago. There is no change. The Illinois Republican Party had a fairly animated internal discussion between Romney and Perry factions [Yes, that Perry.] within the party back in late August and early September 2011. Those discussions also involved significant input from the Paul campaign and its supporters from outside. But at the end of it all, the party stuck with the delegate selection plan that it has employed throughout the post-reform era.

And for the record, that plan has never been proportional or winner-take-all. Illinois has a loophole primary.

A loophole primary is not unlike the array of state-level rules for Republican delegate allocation this cycle in that the ultimate allocation is not quite proportional and not quite winner-take-all. Winners of loophole primaries have historically not necessarily taken all of a state's delegates from a victory, but more than their share of the vote would otherwise indicate. Jimmy Carter, for instance, exploited loophole primaries in 1976 on his way to the Democratic nomination.² The loophole primary takes its name from the fact that such rules allowed states to skirt the Democratic Party ban on winner-take-all allocation, and while not entirely winner-take-all, the results were not that far removed such an allocation in most cases.

Loophole primary bans came to the Democratic Party rules in the 1980s, but were never restricted on the Republican side. And though the Republican Party allowed loophole rules, a decreasing number of states over time actually utilized them. The two mainstays are Illinois and Pennsylvania, but West Virginia Republicans have also adopted, in part, some elements of a loophole allocation in its primary for 2012.

The loophole primary is one that is not quite proportional and not quite winner-take-all, but how are the rules constructed to allow for this winner-take-more/most allocation?

Illinois delegate breakdown:

• 69 total (unbound) delegates
• 12 at-large delegates
• 54 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

Re-read that. All 69 delegates are unbound heading into the convention. While that is technically true, it is also a bit misleading. Tomorrow night those reporting the results will go out of their way to tell us who is winning the presidential preference vote. The only problem is that that vote is completely meaningless. That vote for Gingrich or Paul or Romney or Santorum will mean nothing to the ultimate allocation of delegates. That has something to do with the fact all of the delegates will ultimately be unbound, but that does not provide a full picture of the situation.

The only vote(s) that will matter in Illinois tomorrow -- at least in terms of delegate allocation -- are the votes for delegates. Primary voters will be voting for delegates directly on the ballot; for two to four congressional district slots (depending on which congressional district). Those voters will have the advantage of knowing which candidates the delegates support or if they are uncommitted. That information appears on the ballot. Now, one would think that perhaps this would in practice end up close to proportional. Often, however, it depends on who the delegates are. For instance, John McCain four years ago counted among his filed Illinois delegates former Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert. Known political names -- whether national or locally -- like that have a way of attracting voters' attention. That is a function of organization. McCain, like Jimmy Carter in Texas in 1976, was able to parlay a plurality win in Illinois (47%) on Super Tuesday (February 5, 2008) into a nearly 95% share of the delegates. He won in the primary vote 54 of the available 57 congressional district delegate slots. Mitt Romney won the remaining three delegates.

That sort of process will play out across the 18 Illinois congressional districts in tomorrow's primary.³ And though the Illinois Republican Party -- or more accurately the RNC -- will consider those delegates unbound, due to the fact that they were filed by or for the campaigns, those delegates are set in their preferences. However, that amounts to nothing more than a pledge. Loyalty oaths are not required and those delegates could change their minds if they so chose.

As for the 12 at-large delegates, those will be chosen at the state convention, but will also remain unbound. The same goes for the three automatic delegates.

The main thing is that you can treat the topline presidential preference vote in Illinois tomorrow either like a caucus state straw poll or a semi-official poll of the primary electorate. Other than that, it is meaningless. To adequately track the results look down the ballot to where the delegates are being selected. Who among those folks are making it through and more importantly whom do they support? That will tell you what you need to know for Wednesday morning.

And no, Illinois isn't proportional, Cokie. Not now, not in the past and likely not in the future. The Republican delegate selection rules have no impact on Republicans in the Land of Lincoln.

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

² As Elaine Kamarck explains about the 1976 Texas primary, Carter was able to win 94% of the delegates in the Lone Star state with just over 47% of the vote. Again, it isn't quite winner-take-all but it certainly isn't proportional; something for which many within the Democratic Party at the time were striving.

³ It should be noted that Rick Santorum was short of the required number of signatures for 12 delegates across 10 congressional districts in Illinois. That is over 20% of the total number of congressional district delegates at stake for which the former Pennsylvania senator will not be eligible.


Recent Posts:
Race to 1144: Southern Tuesday/Puerto Rico

About that RNC Delegate Count, Part Two

A Few Thoughts on the Missouri Caucuses

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Puerto Rico

This is the twenty-fourth 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.


PUERTO RICO

This seems to be a running theme in the last few of these glances at state-level delegate allocation, but the RNC memo released in December gave the wrong impression of the delegate allocation in Puerto Rico. That document indicated that the Atlantic island US commonwealth would be allocating its delegates winner-take-all. Well, that set off a whole host of "But Puerto Rico is scheduled to hold its primary before April 1. How are they winner-take-all and not penalized?" questions.

The answer is simple: no violation, no penalty. Puerto Rico is conditionally winner-take-all/proportional.² Depending on whether a candidate receives a majority of the vote across the island in the primary, the winning candidate will receive either all of the island's at-large delegates or divide them proportionally with any other candidate receiving over 15% of the vote. If, then, a candidate wins a majority, he will be allocated all 20 at-large delegates. If not, then the allocation is proportional. Easy enough, right?

Puerto Rico delegate breakdown:

• 23 total delegates
• 20 at-large delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

The three automatic delegates are free to endorse or pledge to any candidate of their choice. Thus far, both Mitt Romney has claimed endorsements from two Puerto Rico automatic delegates and Newt Gingrich one each.

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

² Here is the relevant section of the Puerto Rico Republican Party delegate selection rules that FHQ has received on background:

• All twenty (20) delegates and twenty (20) alternate delegates from Puerto Rico are delegates at large.

• Each candidate for President shall be awarded at-large delegates from Puerto Rico authorized by the Republican National Committee proportionately, according to the ratio of votes they received to the total votes cast on an islandwide basis. Provided however, no delegates shall be awarded to any candidate for President receiving less than fifteen percent (15%) of the vote, and such votes shall be allocated among the other candidates in proportion to their total vote. If one candidate for President receives a majority (50%) of the total islandwide votes cast, then that candidate shall be awarded all at-large delegates from Puerto Rico.

Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Hawaii

About that Santorum Campaign Delegate Strategy Memo

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Mississippi

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Hawaii

This is the twenty-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.


HAWAII

Hawaii, like Mississippi, is another state where the RNC memo on state-by-state delegate allocation is somewhat misleading. At the very least, that December memo left several things unsaid while making it appear as if Hawaii was a state that allocates its delegates proportionally. The Aloha Republicans do use a proportional forumla, but with some caveats.

Hawaii delegate breakdown:

• 20 total delegates
• 11 at-large delegates
• 6 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

Right off the bat, FHQ should note a couple of things:

1. There is no conditionality to the allocation of the delegates in Hawaii. Even if one candidate receives a majority of the vote, the delegate allocation will remain proportional.
2. Though the RNC memo cited above indicates that there is a 15% threshold for receiving delegates, there is nothing in the Hawaii rules on delegate allocation signaling that that is in fact the case.² With the threshold the allocation looks a lot like Mississippi. Without the threshold, Hawaii looks like a cross between Mississippi (congressional district delegates) and Alaska (proportional caucus state with no threshold).  

At-large allocation: With the above notes in mind, the allocation of the 11 at-large delegates will either be proportional to all candidates or proportional to all candidates over 15% of the vote statewide. That distinction may make some differences but only at the margins and mostly only for any candidate(s) who does (do) not receive over 15% of the vote. Plus, all that we are really talking about here is 11 delegates divided up among two or three or four candidates. The key to remember here is that the allocation is done in descending order starting with the top vote-getter and moving down the line. In other words, the statewide winner will have his delegate total rounded up to the nearest whole number and so on until all of the delegates are allocated. For example (alphabetically) we could simulate the delegate allocation based on the following results (assuming no 15% threshold)³:

Vote Share:
Gingrich: 27%
Paul: 26%
Romney: 24%
Santorum: 23%

Delegates:
Gingrich: 2.97
Paul: 2.86
Romney: 2.64
Santorum: 2.53

This ends up being a nice, fictitious example because all of the candidates would theoretically round up to three delegates. But there are not 12 at-large delegates to allocate; only 11. Again, in descending order, then, Gingrich would round up to three delegates, then Paul would round up to three delegates, then Romney would round up to three delegates and Santorum would receive the final two delegates available. In that scenario, despite being above half a delegate, Santorum could not round up to the next highest number according to the Hawaii rules.

Congressional district allocation: As is the case in most states, there are three delegates apportioned to each of the two congressional districts in Hawaii. Those three delegates will be allocated proportionally as well. But recall that it is unclear whether there is a 15% threshold in place in Hawaii. That matters at the margins here because depending on how many candidates surpass that barrier, it may make the the difference between some candidate receiving delegates or not. [But it appears that there is no threshold. See note 3 below.] This means that unless a candidate receives a majority of the votes within a congressional district, then no one will receive over one delegate per congressional district. In other words, if no one is over 50% then the top three vote-getters will be allocated one delegate each. If a candidate is able to get a majority on the congressional district level, then their delegate total will round up to two delegates. But at the end of the day, all we're talking about are 6 delegates. No one is likely to take a huge margin out of these districts, much less the entire state, without a fairly broad victory.

Automatic delegate allocation: All three Hawaii automatic delegates are unbound and unaffected by tonight's results. They are all free to endorse or pledge to whichever candidate they choose.

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

² Hawaii Republican Party delegate selection rules (sections 214-216):
Hawaii Republican Party Rules-2011
³ A new RNC blog post out this afternoon seems to indicate that there is no 15% threshold for wither at-large or congressional district delegates.

Recent Posts:
About that Santorum Campaign Delegate Strategy Memo

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Mississippi

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Alabama

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Mississippi

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

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

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


MISSISSIPPI

Contrary to how the December RNC memo on delegate allocation by state described it, Mississippi is not exactly proportional.² Well, it is, but not in the same way that all of the delegates from New Hampshire or Massachusetts were. Instead, the formula is slightly more complicated. First, what's at state in the Magnolia state on Tuesday?

Mississippi delegate breakdown:

• 40 total delegates
• 25 at-large delegates
• 12 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

At-large allocation: The 25 at-large delegates are all allocated to the winner of the statewide vote if that  candidate receives a majority of the vote. If no candidate clears the 50% barrier, then the allocation is proportional to those candidates who have received over 15% of the vote.

Notes: As was/will be the case in Alabama, this means that a close race -- like the tight three way race that the polling in the state seems to indicate -- yields a near even allocation of at-large delegates among Gingrich, Romney and Santorum. Again, this would greatly resemble what we witnessed in Oklahoma. 

Congressional district allocation: The three congressional district delegates per each of the four Mississippi districts are also allocated winner-take-all if one candidate is able to garner a majority of the vote. Now, if no candidate clears the 50% mark is where this gets interesting -- especially in light of a potentially tight three way race. With no one over the majority point and with three candidates likely over the 15% threshold, none of the three candidates is going to be mathematically able to gain enough separation to round up to more than one delegate. In a race with three candidates over 15% within any one of the congressional districts, one candidate would have to get over half of the vote to even round up to two delegates. And of course, at that level, a candidate would receive all three delegates. In all likelihood, a candidate will have to clear the 20% mark within a congressional district to be able to round up to one full delegate; particularly if that candidate is in third place.

Notes: Mississippi, then, ends up looking an awful lot like Oklahoma (...on the condition that the vote mirrors the recent polling in the state. That is anything but a certainty.): a proportional allocation of the at-large delegates and an evenly distributed allocation of the three congressional district delegates to the three candidates over 15%. But on the congressional district level there may be some measure of variation across districts that may alter the possibility of one district delegate per candidate pattern.

Automatic delegate allocation: The three automatic delegates -- as is the case with most of them across the country -- are free to endorse or pledge themselves to a candidate of their choosing. In Mississippi, one automatic delegate has already endorsed Mitt Romney.

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

² Mississippi Republican Party delegate allocation rules:
2012 Mississippi Republican Delegate Allocation Rules

Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Alabama

Race to 1144: Super Tuesday, Kansas/Territories

About that RNC Delegate Count...

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Alabama

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

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

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


ALABAMA

Truth be told, FHQ has already examined the Alabama Republican Party delegate allocation rules.² But for the sake of refreshing our collective memories, let's review and with a compare and contrast:

Alabama delegate breakdown:

• 50 total delegates
• 26 at-large delegates
• 21 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

At-large allocation: If one candidate receives a majority of the statewide vote, then that candidate is entitled to all 26 at-large delegates, otherwise the allocation is proportional to all candidates over 20% of the vote.

Notes: This is like the at-large allocation in Oklahoma on Super Tuesday with the exception that the threshold for receiving delegates in the Sooner state was 15% and not 20%.

Congressional district allocation: If a candidate receives a majority of the vote in any one of the seven congressional districts in Alabama, that candidate is allocated all three delegates from that district. However, if no candidate receives a majority, the top vote-getter receives two delegates while the runner-up receives one. Should only one candidate break the 20% barrier within the district, that candidate is entitled to all three delegates from that district.

Notes: Keep Oklahoma in mind for a moment. The congressional district allocation in Alabama is most akin to the allocation in Georgia on Super Tuesday. The difference is that while Georgia was a two person race across most of the state -- when Gingrich failed to receive a majority of the vote, he most often split the allocation with Romney and not Santorum -- Alabama is shaping up to be a three person race according to the polls. Now, the polls in some of these Deep South states should be taken with a grain of salt given historical precedent. But if the race ends up being the dead heat it looks to be, then the delegate allocation could end up being a little quirky because the dynamics of the congressional district allocation. While the allocation in Oklahoma granted each candidate over 15% of the vote within the congressional district one delegate each (something that happened in each of the five districts in the Sooner state), depending on how the Alabama vote breaks down within each congressional district could offset any edge gained in the at-large allocation if the statewide winner wins by a small margin. Due to the current optics of this primary, the delegate allocation could be as tight as it was in Oklahoma or the margin could shift toward the statewide winner (depending on the votes by congressional district).

Automatic allocation: Easy enough. The three automatic delegates are unbound and free to choose whomever they please. One of the three Alabama automatic delegates has already endorsed Rick Santorum.

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

² The following is the delegate selection plan the Alabama Republican Party publicly released in August 2011:
2012.al.gop.pres.primary.rules

Recent Posts:
Race to 1144: Super Tuesday, Kansas/Territories

About that RNC Delegate Count...

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Kansas

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Kansas

This is the twentieth 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.


KANSAS

With caucuses set to begin across Kansas later today, a quick look at how those 40 delegates will be allocated is probably a useful exercise. Republicans in the Sunflower state -- like those in Nevada, Idaho and Alaska before them -- will actually bind delegates based on the results of the closed precinct caucuses.² But let's have a closer look:³

Kansas delegation breakdown:

• 40 total delegates
• 25 at-large delegates
• 12 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

First of all, since the Kansas precinct caucuses are binding, the allocation has to qualify as "proportional" in the eyes of the RNC. The bare minimum action to achieve that distinction is to allocate at-large delegate proportionate to a candidate's share of the vote. That is what Kansas Republicans have done. Candidates are eligible for a proportionate share of the 25 at-large delegates if they receive at least 20% of the vote statewide. [FHQ went into some detail about this yesterday when Kansas was used as an example in our post-Super Tuesday examination of the delegate math.] Everyone should be eyeing Ron Paul today and whether the Texas congressman is able to surpass the 20% barrier. Santorum looks to be poised for victory and Romney will likely cross 20%, but whether Paul gets there will determine how these at-large delegates are allocated. If only one candidate breaks the 20% barrier or no candidates get there, the allocation reverts to a straight proportional method for everyone.

For the congressional district delegates the formula is simple: Win the district, win the delegates. Each of the four Kansas congressional districts has three delegates. A clean sweep of all four means 12 delegates for the winner in addition to the three automatic delegates -- who are bound according to the results of the statewide vote (to the winner).

In other words, if one candidate has a consensus victory across the state -- both statewide and in the four congressional districts -- that candidate will start out with a base 15 delegates before the at-large delegates are proportionally allocated.

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

² Caucusgoers have to be registered Republicans to participate. Independents and Democrats can participate if they switched their registration on or before February 17.

³ Below is the Kansas Republican Party delegate selection plan:
2012 Kansas Caucus Rules


Recent Posts:
Romney Sweeps Northern Mariana Islands 9 Delegates

Guam Goes for Romney

The Revenge of Santorum Can't Get to 1144

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: North Dakota

This is the nineteenth 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.


NORTH DAKOTA

It is likely sufficient to say that to get a sense of how the North Dakota Republican delegate selection/allocation process operates, one can simply look at Iowa, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota and Washington as broad guides. Republicans in the Peace Garden state will similarly hold a non-binding straw poll vote in the precinct caucuses across 47 legislative districts in the state. Again, the straw poll results are non-binding and give us a snapshot of how well each candidate has done among the caucusgoers in attendance. Ultimately, the 28 delegates North Dakota Republicans were apportioned will head to the Tampa convention unbound (but free to endorse). That means that the process is just starting tonight and will not be complete until those delegates are selected at the state convention on March 30-April 1.

There is no party registration in North Dakota, so any registered voter can participate in the caucuses.

North Dakota delegate breakdown:

• 28 total delegates
• 22 at-large delegates
• 3 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

Both the congressional district and at-large delegates will be selected at the state convention. With only one congressional district, the state convention in North Dakota -- unlike Alaska for instance -- doubles as a district convention gathering as well. The Republican national committeeman and Republican national committeewoman -- both automatic delegates -- are also elected at the state convention in presidential election years.

--
UPDATE: As our anonymous commenter has pointed out, district conventions have been going on since January 17 and will continue into March. That, however, is a completely separate vote from the straw poll that is being conducted across the 47 districts across the state today. This does say something about the likely link between the two events though. If FHQ has talk about anything consistently, it is that the snapshot in the straw poll vote does not necessarily reflect the vote in the delegate allocation portion of the meeting. And that is within one meeting. If the two votes are separately the link between the straw poll vote and the delegate selection (through the initial district-level conventions) is even more tenuous.

--
UPDATE (3/30/12): The delegate selection process will be complete with the selection of congressional district and at-large delegates at the March 30-April 1 convention in the Peace Garden state. Those delegates are technically unbound, but it will be up to the state party, old-fashioned press reporting or the selected delegates themselves revealing who they prefer. Rick Santorum won the March 6 straw poll and this weekend may be a better indicator of where the former Pennsylvania senator stands in this race than the Wisconsin primary on Tuesday. If he performs up to or overperforms his straw poll performance in the final delegate count in North Dakota, then nothing really changes. If, however, Santorum underperforms in the delegate count compared to his straw poll showing, then it will be revealing about his organization and perhaps the emerging inevitability argument in this Republican nomination race.

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

Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Massachusetts

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Idaho

Goodbye Idaho Presidential Primary

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Massachusetts

This is the eighteenth 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.


MASSACHUSETTS

Ho-hum.

Following Idaho, the Massachusetts Republican Party method of delegate appears quite pedestrian. In fact, the Massachusetts Republican Party method of delegate allocation is more the Massachusetts commonwealth method of allocation as the formula is broadly defined in the Massachusetts General Laws.

Now, this is not to suggest that the state party has no say in the matter. As FHQ argued in the New Hampshire discussion, the state party always has the final say on these matters. If there is a conflict between state law and what the state party wants in terms of delegate allocation, the courts typically square the issue; yielding to the desires of the party. In this instance, Bay state Republicans allocate their apportioned delegates in proportion to the vote share each candidate receives in the statewide election. The Massachusetts Republican Party has added the caveat that only candidates over the 15% mark in that statewide vote are eligible for a portion of the delegates.

What that means is that Massachusetts is essentially New Hampshire, but with a slightly higher minimum threshold for receiving delegates (15% as opposed to 10% in New Hampshire). This is applied across the entire delegation regardless of the at-large or congressional district distinction.

Massachusetts delegate breakdown:

• 41 total delegates
• 11 at-large delegates
• 27 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates 

The 38 at-large and congressional district delegates are allocated to candidates over 15% of the vote proportionate to their share of the statewide election. The remaining three automatic delegates are unbound and can endorse when and if they choose to do so.


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

Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Idaho

Goodbye Idaho Presidential Primary

Santorum Can't Get to 1144

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