Showing posts with label Hawaii. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hawaii. Show all posts

Friday, October 16, 2020

The Electoral College Map (10/16/20)

Update for October 16.


The work week comes to a close in much the same way that it began. Which is to say that the polling releases slowed down relative to the last few days while posting a handful more surveys than came out on Monday. Regardless, today's batch offered some unusual results from both some of the usual suspects and some of the less frequently surveyed states further out in the order on both sides of the partisan line. And perhaps suggesting that the results were uncommon is coded language for the fact that a few of these polls do not exactly match the story of consistency that FHQ has so often told in recent weeks. That said, even with a few polls that stray from consistency, little changed and that is especially true in the states that matter in the heart of the order on the Electoral College Spectrum below.

In any event, on to the polls... 


Polling Quick Hits:
Alaska
(Trump 45, Biden 39)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +6.59]
The Last Frontier has seen but nine publicly released surveys in calendar 2020 and Siena/NYT Upshot_ was the latest to wade into the presidential, Senate and House races to gauge public sentiment as time until election day inched down below three weeks this week. What Siena found in the presidential race in its first survey there this season was not off target with respect to the overall margin. It is in line with the average margin FHQ has had for Alaska for a few weeks now. What is different in this poll is how much support both caudates are pulling. Both are at their low points by fairly significant margins. Biden lags around five points behind his graduated weighted average share of support in Alaska polling and Trump is six points off his. And this is due to Siena not prompting potential leaners among at large group of undecided respondents and those supporting other minor party candidates. But again, since the margin is consistent with where the race is Alaska has been, this poll does not shift the state much in the order among Lean Trump states. 


Arizona
(Trump 46, Biden 45)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +3.03]
Siena's survey in Alaska was not the only first time in _____ poll of the day. Targoz Market Research_ was also recently in the field but in Arizona and had Trump ahead there by one percent. Trump leads in the Grand Canyon state are not non-existent, but they have happened with some relative infrequency. Out of the 82 publicly available polls in Arizona, Trump has led in just 15 of them. In October alone there have been 13 polls conducted in the state and Trump has led in only two of them. That is just around one in every six surveys with Trump ahead. They occur. And this poll in particular finds Trump right in the middle of his range of support while Biden is toward the bottom of his recent range. Arizona remains close, but as indicated by the nature of the polling above, Biden has been consistently out in front in the state.


Florida
(Biden 48, Trump 45)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +3.36]
It was not that long ago -- in the lead up to the first debate -- that FHQ cited how often Biden +3 leads were popping up in the data in the Sunshine state. The latest Mason-Dixon poll of Florida likely voters hits that sweet spot and is at least some evidence of some contraction in the race there since July when the firm was last in the field there. Then, it was Biden 50-46 but during a period that was part of that polling surge across the country for the former vice president. The interesting thing is that both candidates have lost some support since that time. It is not much, to be sure, but both ticked down some to a point that is consistent with where the FHQ averages are for both candidates in Florida. 


Hawaii
(Biden 61, Trump 28)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +29.86]
Like Alaska, there has been little polling of Hawaii in calendar 2020 and even fewer pollsters involved. Other than a few waves of small sample surveys from Survey Monkey, MRG Research has been the only other pollster to conduct any surveys in the Aloha state and had an update released today. Like the July poll, this latest survey was among registered and not likely voters, but still saw some movement. But it was movement for just one candidate. Trump held steady in the upper 20s which is behind both his 2016 showing and his current polling average in the state. On the other hand, Biden added support in the three months since the last MRG survey of Hawaii and pulled in line with Clinton's pace there four years ago and his own current FHQ average share of support in the state. And that is not an uncommon feature of the 2020 polling in the bluest of states. Any difference between the polling of 2020 and the 2016 results in those states is typically on Trump's side of the equation. The president tends to trail his 2016 showing while Biden is often consistent with where Clinton ended up in November 2016. But hold on to that thought for a moment. It returns later on in the post. 


Michigan
(Trump 47, Biden 46)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +7.08]
With just one exception, Trafalgar Group has shown a close race for Michigan's 16 electoral votes; something that often looks similar to the 2016 results in the state. That exception was the last survey the firm conducted immediately prior to the first presidential debate at the end of September that found Biden up a couple of points. If that is one's touchstone, then it looks as if there has been a modest shift in October toward Trump. Instead, it is that late September poll that stands out in the Trafalgar series in the Great Lakes state. What is more the whole series does not exactly jibe well with the full universe of polls in Michigan in calendar 2020. Michigan has been the most frequently surveyed state this cycle and just 13 of the 103 surveys have had Biden below 47 percent as he is in the this survey. And of those 13, eight found the former vice president either tied or in the lead. All of those tended to have a high share of undecided/other respondents. And the rest were from Trafalgar which has had both candidates consistently in the mid-40s other than the pre-debate poll cited above. Typically, that ends up with Trump at the high end of his range and Biden near the low point of his. 


New Jersey
(Biden 56, Trump 36)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +19.05]
Over in the Garden state, the new Stockton University survey -- its first there of the cycle -- fell in line with the current FHQ average shares of both candidates there. But as was the case in Hawaii, the poll was consistent with the averages but was more evidence of Biden being on par with Clinton's showing in New Jersey and Trump lagging behind his by more than four points. Again, that is the trend in some deeper blue states: Biden seemingly consolidating Clinton support and Trump being unable to put together the same 2016 coalition. 


North Carolina
(Biden 49, Trump 49)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +1.76]
Emerson was back in the field in North Carolina for the first time since September and although there were some changes they were in part methodological. The 51-49 Biden edge then is a tie at Emerson now, but the college pollster added an other response in this latest survey that was not there last month. The presence of other in the October poll siphoned off a couple of point and it came mainly from Biden. However, the bottom line in this Emerson series in the Tar Heel state is that it has been close and obviously continues to be in this latest update. But in this case, the survey has Biden support in line with his average at FHQ while Trump is running out in front of his average support.




The Electoral College Spectrum1
DC-3
VT-3
(6)2
IL-20
(162)
WI-10
(253)
MO-10
(125)
TN-11
(60)
MA-11
(17)
OR-7
(169)
PA-203
(273 | 285)
AK-3
(115)
KY-8
(49)
MD-10
(27)
NJ-14
(183)
NV-6
(279 | 265)
SC -9
(112)
AL-9
(41)
HI-4
(31)
ME-2
(185)
FL-29
(308 | 259)
KS-6
(103)
SD-3
(32)
CA-55
(86)
CO-9
(194)
AZ-11
(319 | 230)
NE CD1-1
MT-3
(97)
ID-4
(29)
NYI-29
(115)
VA-13
(207)
NC-15
ME CD2-1
(335 | 219)
NE-2
(93)
AR-6
(25)
DE-3
(118)
NH-4
(211)
GA-16
(351 | 203)
IN-11
(91)
OK-7
(19)
WA-12
(130)
NM-5
(216)
OH-18
(187)
UT-6
(80)
ND-3
(12)
ME CD1-1
CT-7
(138)
MN-10
(226)
IA-6
(169)
MS-6
(74)
WV-5
(9)
RI-4
(142)
NE CD2-1
MI-16
(243)
TX-38
(163)
LA-8
(68)
WY-3
NE CD3-1
(4)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.

2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Pennsylvania (Biden's toss up states plus the Pennsylvania), he would have 285 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Biden's number is on the left and Trump's is on the right in bold italics.

3 Pennsylvania
 is the state where Biden crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election, the tipping point state. The tipping point cell is shaded in yellow to denote that and the font color is adjusted to attempt to reflect the category in which the state is.

If one expected big changes from floods of state-level polling over the last few days, then this smaller batch should certainly temper expectations today. They should be low in a fairly consistent race anyway. And while there were no changes to the map or the Watch List below, some of the polls above whether unusual or not from and/or from sporadically surveyed states triggered a couple of changes. The margin grew in Hawaii after the MRG poll was added there, pushing the Aloha state past New York and California deeper into the Biden coalition of states. The Siena poll of Alaska had the opposite effect. Yes, the Last Frontier remains in a tightly clustered group with Missouri and South Carolina, but the poll release there today drew the average in just enough to pull Alaska past Missouri toward the partisan line. Still, both of those states are safely blue and red respectively. And that is unlikely to change between now and election day. 

18 days to go.


Where things stood at FHQ on October 16 (or close to it) in...
2016
2012
2008


--
NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Biden and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.

The Watch List1
State
Potential Switch
Georgia
from Toss Up Biden
to Toss Up Trump
New Hampshire
from Strong Biden
to Lean Biden
New Mexico
from Strong Biden
to Lean Biden
Ohio
from Toss Up Trump
to Toss Up Biden
Pennsylvania
from Lean Biden
to Toss Up Biden
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

--
Methodological Note: In past years, FHQ has tried some different ways of dealing with states with no polls or just one poll in the early rounds of these projections. It does help that the least polled states are often the least competitive. The only shortcoming is that those states may be a little off in the order in the Spectrum. In earlier cycles, a simple average of the state's three previous cycles has been used. But in 2016, FHQ strayed from that and constructed an average swing from 2012 to 2016 that was applied to states. That method, however, did little to prevent anomalies like the Kansas poll that had Clinton ahead from biasing the averages. In 2016, the early average swing in the aggregate was  too small to make much difference anyway. For 2020, FHQ has utilized an average swing among states that were around a little polled state in the rank ordering on election day in 2016. If there is just one poll in Delaware in 2020, for example, then maybe it is reasonable to account for what the comparatively greater amount of polling tells us about the changes in Connecticut, New Jersey and New Mexico. Or perhaps the polling in Iowa, Mississippi and South Carolina so far tells us a bit about what may be happening in Alaska where no public polling has been released. That will hopefully work a bit better than the overall average that may end up a bit more muted.


--
Related posts:




Follow FHQ on TwitterInstagram and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Wednesday, August 5, 2020

The Electoral College Map (8/5/20)

Update for August 5.


Changes (August 5)
StateBeforeAfter
Ohio
Toss Up Trump
Toss Up Biden
There are now just 90 days until election day on November 3. And that threshold has been marked by a change to the map here at FHQ. Ohio has once again hopped the partisan line in the order of states below and shifted to a Biden toss up. However, the Buckeye state, like Pennsylvania during the latter half of July, is a state constantly teetering on the brink of a change, hovering near the line that separates Biden's and Trump's respective coalitions of states. In other words, even though this change restores the map to what it was when FHQ began these near daily updates in mid-June, Ohio is in a position where that could change as new polling data is introduced.

And not to return once again to this well, but if Ohio is among the most competitive states -- and it is the most competitive on the map at the moment -- on November 3, then it says a lot about where the election is likely headed.


Polling Quick Hits:
Hawaii (Biden 56, Trump 29):
Yesterday, there were a handful of polls from reliably red or blue states that helped fill out the picture on the extremes of both candidates' current coalitions. Today adds another poll from such state, and it is the first survey in the field in Hawaii in calendar 2020. Unsurprisingly, Biden leads and comfortably in the MRG Research poll, but his share of support in the poll is behind where Clinton ended up in the Aloha state in November 2016. But there was a large share of undecideds (10 percent).


Florida (Biden 43, Trump 43):
Zogby Analytics had an interesting series of battleground polls from a quartet of states. But it was an interesting set taken together. Inconsistent with other recent polling, Florida was the most competitive  of the bunch while Ohio and Pennsylvania were less tipped toward Biden than North Carolina. All four were within four points of each other which is a seemingly tight range. Yet, at FHQ the spread between the is right at five points, but the order of the states is different. Such outcomes are not that atypical within a group in that sort of range, but it does look off when Florida and Pennsylvania have consistently been more Biden-favorable in polls than North Carolina and Ohio have been. The tie in Florida in particular is on the very low end of the range of margins in the Sunshine state in 2020 polling there.


Iowa (Biden 47, Trump 47):
Monmouth was also out with another state-level survey with different samples and assumptions about what turnout may look like in November. As was the case with the earlier Georgia and Pennsylvania polls from Monmouth, the new Iowa poll had a range of results that differ based on the assumptions made. And like those earlier state-level polls the race got more competitive as the sample moved from registered to likely and from likely (high turnout) to likely (low turnout). But in the Hawkeye state that meant the race got more positive for Biden through that succession instead of more Trump-friendly. But FHQ has taken to using the low turnout version and does so again in this instance. That said, for context, the change in the averages is about half a point. Trump's already narrow advantage in Iowa dips from 1.5 points with the registered sample included to just a bit more than a point (and just off the Watch List) with the low turnout assumption.


Michigan (Biden 53, Trump 41):
Hodas and Associates was again in the field in July in the blue wall states that Trump flipped in 2016. And again, as in June, they collectively and individually paint a rather rosy picture for Joe Biden. In the Michigan survey, however, the former vice president saw both his margin and share of support slip from June to July while still maintaining a double digit lead. That Biden +12 is not necessarily an outlier, but it is on the upper end of the range in the Wolverine state in late July polling. More importantly, it was outdated enough in early August that the impact was reduced in the FHQ graduated weighted average. While it boosted Biden's overall advantage here in the state, it remained around Biden +7.5.


North Carolina (Biden 44, Trump 40):
The survey of the Tar Heel state from Zogby Analytics was in line with other recent polling in the field in the state. But while the margin may have been consistent, neither candidate's share of support was. Both were on the low end with inflated (unprompted) undecideds. But while Biden's share in the poll was off by almost three points from the FHQ average share, Trump's was lower by more than five points.


Ohio (Biden 43, Trump 41):
The same thing was true of the Zogby Analytics survey in Ohio as well. Yes, the two point Biden edge was enough to tip the Buckeye state over the partisan line into Biden territory, but with a higher than typical share of undecideds, both candidates ran behind their established averages at FHQ, but Trump was disproportionately affected, running four points behind where the aggregated polling outlook has the president in the Buckeye state. These polls may not be outliers with respect to their margins, but their shares of support for the two major party candidates is well below where they have tended to be in all four states.


Pennsylvania (Biden 44, Trump 43 via Zogby Analytics | Biden 51, Trump 45 via Hodas & Associates):
Rather than go broken record and repeat the same story about Zogby, there was a Hodas poll more worthy of a discussion. Like the Michigan poll above, Biden led in July, but by less than was true in June. Like the Michigan survey, the Pennsylvania poll also saw the margin decrease by six points. By unlike the still-rosy picture in Michigan, the Pennsylvania results were right in line with where FHQ currently has the race in the Keystone state pegged: in the mid-single digits. Biden's share of support was still north of 50 percent and that has been a facet of these Hodas polls over the last couple of months. Overall, however, Pennsylvania remains just above the Lean/Toss up line in the Lean Biden category.


Wisconsin (Biden 52, Trump 38):
Finally, in the Badger state, Hodas and Associates also found Biden out to a big lead. But yes, it also trailed off some from the 17 point advantage Biden had in Wisconsin in the June wave of blue wall surveys. And even though the margin shrank, Biden's +14 in this poll is still on the high side of the range of polling in the Badger state. Most of that is a function of Trump's low standing in these polls. The president comes in again under 40 percent, four points behind his FHQ average share of support.


NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2020 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.


The Electoral College Spectrum1
MA-112
(14)
NJ-14
(173)
WI-10
NE CD2-1
(253)
AK-3
(125)
TN-11
(56)
HI-4
(18)
OR-7
(180)
PA-203
(273 | 285)
MO-10
(122)
NE-2
(45)
CA-55
(73)
DE-3
(183)
FL-29
(302 | 265)
SC-9
(112)
ID-4
(43)
VT-3
(76)
CO-9
(192)
NV-6
(308 | 236)
MT-3
(103)
AL-9
(39)
NY-29
(105)
NM-5
(197)
AZ-11
(319 | 230)
UT-6
(100)
ND-3
(30)
WA-12
(117)
ME-2
(199)
NC-15
(334 | 219)
LA-8
NE CD1-1
(94)
SD-3
(27)
MD-10
(127)
VA-13
(212)
OH-18
(352 | 204)
MS-6
(85)
KY-8
(24)
IL-20
(147)
MN-10
(222)
GA-16
(186)
IN-11
(79)
OK-7
(16)
RI-4
ME CD1-1
(152)
MI-16
(238)
IA-6
(170)
AR-6
(68)
WV-5
(9)
CT-7
(159)
NH-4
(242)
TX-38
ME CD2-1
(164)
KS-6
(62)
WY-3
NE CD3-1
(4)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.

2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Pennsylvania (Biden's toss up states plus the Pennsylvania), he would have 285 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Biden's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics.


To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College.

3 Pennsylvania
 is the state where Biden crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election, the tipping point state.

There were nine new polls from eight different states released today, and with the exception of maybe the Iowa survey, all of them were quirky in one way or another. Quirks though many of those surveys may have contained, they did not fundamentally shake things up here at FHQ. Yes, Ohio jumped back onto Biden turf, but a slight breeze could have accomplished that as close as the Buckeye state was in the averages before that Zogby survey was added. Again, new polling data may take Ohio back over the partisan line when it is introduced. The state remains the closest and that should be expected rather than not, barring a further large national shift in Biden's direction. Everything else stayed the same in the rank ordering of states depicted on the Electoral College Spectrum above.

But the Watch List lost one state. Wisconsin nudged over the six point barrier and is no longer within a point of shifting from a Lean to Toss up Biden state. But that push across the six point barrier was fueled by a (somewhat outdated) outlier. In other words, its addition was discounted, but still pushed the average margin up enough (but just by two one hundredths of a point). Everything else other than Ohio stayed the same on the List. Those 12 states remain the ones to watch, where polling data may trigger a change.

And add underpolled Nevada to that list as well.

--
There were also no new polls from Nevada today.

Days since the last Nevada poll was in the field: 97.

--
NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Biden and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.

The Watch List1
State
Potential Switch
Florida
from Toss Up Biden
to Lean Biden
Georgia
from Toss Up Trump
to Toss Up Biden
Indiana
from Strong Trump
to Lean Trump
Louisiana
from Strong Trump
to Lean Trump
Mississippi
from Strong Trump
to Lean Trump
Missouri
from Toss Up Trump
to Lean Trump
Nebraska CD1
from Strong Trump
to Lean Trump
Nebraska CD2
from Lean Biden
to Toss Up Biden
Ohio
from Toss Up Biden
to Toss Up Trump
Pennsylvania
from Lean Biden
to Toss Up Biden
Utah
from Lean Trump
to Strong Trump
Virginia
from Strong Biden
to Lean Biden
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

--
Methodological Note: In past years, FHQ has tried some different ways of dealing with states with no polls or just one poll in the early rounds of these projections. It does help that the least polled states are often the least competitive. The only shortcoming is that those states may be a little off in the order in the Spectrum. In earlier cycles, a simple average of the state's three previous cycles has been used. But in 2016, FHQ strayed from that and constructed an average swing from 2012 to 2016 that was applied to states. That method, however, did little to prevent anomalies like the Kansas poll that had Clinton ahead from biasing the averages. In 2016, the early average swing in the aggregate was  too small to make much difference anyway. For 2020, FHQ has utilized an average swing among states that were around a little polled state in the rank ordering on election day in 2016. If there is just one poll in Delaware in 2020, for example, then maybe it is reasonable to account for what the comparatively greater amount of polling tells us about the changes in Connecticut, New Jersey and New Mexico. Or perhaps the polling in Iowa, Mississippi and South Carolina so far tells us a bit about what may be happening in Alaska where no public polling has been released. That will hopefully work a bit better than the overall average that may end up a bit more muted.


--
Related posts:
The Electoral College Map (8/4/20)

The Electoral College Map (8/3/20)

The Electoral College Map (8/2/20)


Follow FHQ on TwitterInstagram and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Monday, May 18, 2020

2020 Democratic Delegate Allocation: HAWAII

HAWAII

Election type: primary
Date: May 22
    [April 4 originally]
Number of delegates: 33 [6 at-large, 3 PLEOs, 15 congressional district, 9 automatic/superdelegates]
Allocation method: proportional statewide and at the congressional district level
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15%
2016: proportional caucuses
Delegate selection plan (pre-coronavirus)


--
Changes since 2016
If one followed the 2016 series on the Republican process here at FHQ, then you may end up somewhat disappointed. The two national parties manage the presidential nomination process differently. The Republican National Committee is much less hands-on in regulating state and state party activity in the delegate selection process than the Democratic National Committee is. That leads to a lot of variation from state to state and from cycle to cycle on the Republican side. Meanwhile, the DNC is much more top down in its approach. Thresholds stay the same. It is a 15 percent barrier that candidates must cross in order to qualify for delegates. That is standard across all states. The allocation of delegates is roughly proportional. Again, that is applied to every state.

That does not mean there are no changes. The calendar has changed as have other facets of the process such as whether a state has a primary or a caucus.

Hawaii Democrats pretty substantially altered their delegate selection process for 2020. Although the state legislature failed in 2018 to create a state government-run presidential primary, the state party in 2019 made the move toward a party-run primary in the wake of new DNC encouragements for increased participation in the presidential nomination process. That party-run primary was to combine both in-person and mail-in voting and a ranked choice ballot.

However, the coronavirus, as in other states, disrupted the state party's initial plans. First, Hawaii Democrats chose to eliminate in-person voting in the originally scheduled April 4 primary. Then, days later, the party moved the date on which mail-in ballots were due to May 22 to allow a bit more time for additional voters to register and for a third round of ballot mailing to occur in early May.

All ballots are due to state party offices by Friday, May 22. That is received and not postmarked by May 22. Since the state party offices are closed due to the coronavirus, there is no option to drop off completed ballots. They must be mailed and received by May 22. No specific deadline time is given.

[Please see below for more on the post-coronavirus changes specifically to the delegate selection process.]

Overall, there were significant changes to the way in which Hawaii Democrats planned to run their delegate selection process for the 2020 cycle. Yet, the Democratic delegation in Hawaii changed by just one delegate from 2016 to 2020. The number of district delegates decreased by one and the other two two categories of pledged delegates stayed exactly the same. So, too, did the number of superdelegates in the Aloha state. The nature of the bonus Hawaii Democrats qualified for in 2020 changed. A 15 percent clustering bonus from 2016 was replaced by a 20 percent timing bonus in 2020. The increased bonus masks some small changes to the base delegation in Hawaii for 2020 from 2016.


Thresholds
The standard 15 percent qualifying threshold applies both statewide and on the congressional district level.


Delegate allocation (at-large and PLEO delegates)
To win any at-large or PLEO (pledged Party Leader and Elected Officials) delegates a candidate must win 15 percent of the statewide vote. Only the votes of those candidates above the threshold will count for the purposes of the separate allocation of these two pools of delegates.

See New Hampshire synopsis for an example of how the delegate allocation math works for all categories of delegates.


Delegate allocation (congressional district delegates)
Hawaii's 15 congressional district delegates are split across two congressional districts and have a variation of just one delegate across districts from the measure of Democratic strength Hawaii Democrats are using based on the results of the 2016 presidential election and the 2018 gubernatorial election in the state. That method apportions delegates as follows...
CD1 - 7 delegates*
CD2 - 8 delegates

*Bear in mind that districts with odd numbers of national convention delegates are potentially important to winners (and those above the qualifying threshold) within those districts. Rounding up for an extra delegate initially requires less in those districts than in districts with even numbers of delegates.


Delegate allocation (automatic delegates/superdelegates)
Superdelegates are free to align with a candidate of their choice at a time of their choosing. While their support may be a signal to voters in their state (if an endorsement is made before voting in that state), superdelegates will only vote on the first ballot at the national convention if half of the total number of delegates -- pledged plus superdelegates -- have been pledged to one candidate. Otherwise, superdelegates are locked out of the voting unless 1) the convention adopts rules that allow them to vote or 2) the voting process extends to a second ballot. But then all delegates, not just superdelegates will be free to vote for any candidate.

[NOTE: All Democratic delegates are pledged and not bound to their candidates. They are to vote in good conscience for the candidate to whom they have been pledged, but technically do not have to. But they tend to because the candidates and their campaigns are involved in vetting and selecting their delegates through the various selection processes on the state level. Well, the good campaigns are anyway.]


Selection
The 15 Hawaii district delegates will be selected by state convention delegates selected in March 4 precinct meetings. However, those state convention delegates will not make those selections at the state convention as planned. Instead, an online voting system will help facilitate a voting window from June 5-8. The state party will distribute voting instructions to delegates on June 5 and provide a deadline of June for their return. The Hawaii Democratic Party State Central Committee meeting at which PLEO and at-large delegates were to have been selected had been pushed to a video/teleconference call that will fall on June 13. In neither case has the group of selectors changed, but the date and meeting format have.

[Initially, before the coronavirus pandemic hit, Hawaii Democrats had planned to hold post-primary state convention on May 23 at which district delegates would have been selected. Likewise, a May 24 state central committee meeting was to have selected PLEO and at-large delegates. Both of those in-person gatherings were eliminated in a revised delegate selection plan that received approval from the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee on April 1.]


Importantly, if a candidate drops out of the race before the selection of statewide delegates, then any statewide delegates allocated to that candidate will be reallocated to the remaining candidates. If Candidate X is in the race in June when the Hawaii statewide delegate selection takes place but Candidate Y is not, then any statewide delegates allocated to Candidate Y in the May party-run primary would be reallocated to Candidate X. [This same feature is not something that applies to district delegates.] This reallocation only applies if a candidate has fully dropped out.  This is less likely to be a factor with just Biden left as the only viable candidate in the race, but Sanders could still gain statewide delegates by finishing with more than 15 percent statewide. Under a new deal struck between the Biden and Sanders camps, Biden will be allocated (or reallocated) all of the statewide delegates in a given state. However, during the selection process, the state party will select Sanders-aligned delegate candidates in proportion to the share of the qualified statewide vote.

Saturday, March 28, 2020

Hawaii Democrats Push End of Vote-By-Mail in Party-Run Primary to May 22

A week after it had eliminated in-person voting at its party-run primary, the Hawaii Democratic Party announced changes to its delegate selection process in the face of the coronavirus pandemic.

On Friday, March 27, Hawaii Democrats laid out a revamped schedule for mailing out ballots to voters and for those voters to return the ballots. As the party revealed a week ago, the deadline to register to vote and enroll as a Democrat in the Aloha state was moved to the original date of in-person voting, April 4. Not included in that release was a plan for when and if the deadline to submit ballots would be extended as has been the case in former April 4 party-run primary states, Alaska and Wyoming. But by moving the deadline to enroll to April 4, Hawaii Democrats intimated as much.

And indeed that is the case. Hawaii Democrats will process the new enrollments and mail out ballots with the anticipated arrival in voters' hands on or around May 2. Those and other previously mailed-out ballots will now be due to the party by Friday, May 22. [This is the return deadline not the postmark deadline.] Results will then be tabulated and released by May 23.

The extension of Hawaii Democrats' deadline to submit their vote-by-mail ballots now shifts out of April another state and adds to what has become a predominantly all-mail May slate of contests in the Democratic nomination process.


The Hawaii Democratic Party extension of the vote-by-mail deadline has been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.


--
Related Posts:
Hawaii Democrats Nix In-Person Voting in April Primary

Tuesday, March 24, 2020

Hawaii Democrats Nix In-Person Voting in April Primary

The Hawaii Democratic Party on Friday, March 20 followed Wyoming Democrats' lead and cancelled the in-person voting component of their April 4 party-run presidential primary. The decision comes as gatherings both large and small come under increased restriction amid the rising threat of the coronavirus spread.

Ballots were mailed to all registered Democrats across the Aloha state, but another round will go out to those who are registered to vote and enrolled as Democrats by April 4, the original end to the voting phase of the process. But that "by April 4" implies that the deadline for submitting those mail-in ballots will be extended further in an effort to both increase participation, but also provide fair opportunities to vote to every Democrat in Hawaii who wants to. Those deadlines will be shared with the public when they are settled.

Among the other parts of the process that remain unresolved for Hawaii Democrats is the delegate selection process. District delegates were originally slated to be selected in congressional district caucuses at the May 23 state convention. But that convention has now been shifted to September, after the Democratic National Convention in July. That, in turn, means that the Hawaii Democratic Party will have to fundamentally reshape the way in which it had planned to select delegates in 2020. The party is in consultation with the DNC over how best to do that.

For now, Hawaii will remain on April 4 on the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar and will stay there until the Democratic Party in the Aloha state finalized mail-in deadlines.


--
Hawaii Democratic Party's press release/email on primary changes archived here.

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Hawaii Democrats Aim for an April Party-Run Primary in Lieu of Caucuses

The Hawaii Democratic Party on Monday, March 25 released its draft 2020 delegate selection plan for a thirty day comment period.

Traditionally a caucus state, but faced with new encouragements from the DNC concerning participation in that format, Hawaii Democrats have opted instead to pursue a party-run primary for the 2020 cycle. Although the language used in the plan refers to the Saturday, April 4 event as both a preference poll and a primary, the reality is that, much like North Dakota before it, Hawaii Democrats will attempt to broaden participation in the presidential nomination process. At 20 locations around the Aloha state, Hawaii Democrats will be able to vote for their top three preferences in a limited ranked choice voting system between 7am and 3pm on April 4. Additionally, the party will allow for an early vote-by-mail period (with the same limited top three preferences ranked choice system) that stretches from March 3 (Super Tuesday) through March 28.

While that part -- the early vote-by-mail window -- of the process is occurring, Hawaii Democrats will hold precinct meetings to begin the selection process. On Wednesday, March 4 (the day after Super Tuesday), those precinct meetings will choose delegates to the May 23-24 state convention where national convention delegates will be chosen.

--
This is further evidence of state parties, especially caucus state parties, straying from business as usual. Moreover, it provides at least some credence to the notion that later caucus states -- those not in the February carve-out state window -- are freer to move in the direction of contests that look more like primary election, but primaries conducted by the state parties. North Dakota and Hawaii have followed the sort of "firehouse caucus" model that came out of the discussions dating all the way back to the 2016 national convention in Philadelphia and were noted in the Unity Reform Commission report. Thus far, only Iowa and Nevada -- both states tiptoeing around the New Hampshire primary they bookend -- have attempted to thread a certain needle, maintaining the traditional caucuses while opening the door through early voting and/or virtual caucuses as a means of increasing participation. Neither followed the "firehouse caucus" model and New Hampshire is why.

The remaining caucus states are mostly not actually states at all, but territories. Although there are a few states yet to release their draft delegate selection plans, it is likely that they follow the model more similar to what Hawaii has outlined above. However, it remains to be seen what territorial parties will do with their contests. Time will tell. All drafts are due to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee for review by May 3.

--
The Hawaii party-run primary date has been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.


Related:
2/11/19: Iowa Democrats Release Draft Delegate Selection Plan for 2020

3/13/19: North Dakota Democrats Plan to Hold March 10 Firehouse Caucuses

3/21/19: Nevada Democrats Release Draft Delegate Selection Plan


--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Pair of Presidential Primary Bills Fails to Gain Traction in Hawaii

Contest type -- whether primary or caucus -- has been a topic of discussion in and out of national party rules-making circles in the time since 2016. That Sanders saw successes in that format and Clinton problems essentially forced mode of allocation into rules discussions on the Democratic side. And even Republicans have ventured into talks about potentially providing incentives to states with primaries rather than caucuses for 2020.

But most of the action thus far on this front has been on the state level. Maine and Minnesota have both adopted through the legislative process presidential primaries to replace the caucus format for 2020. And Colorado arrived at the same endpoint but via ballot initiative in 2016. In a mark of the type of energy exists behind efforts to shift from caucuses to primaries in the presidential nomination process, two bills have been even been introduced in Hawaii.

Now, the Aloha state has traditionally held caucuses rather than a presidential primary. For much of the post-reform era, the two state parties settled into a regular pattern every four years on the presidential primary calendar: Hawaii Republicans started their process with precinct meetings in late January and their Democratic counterparts on the islands followed suit in late February or early March. The regularity with which that pattern occurred developed despite a [state] constitutional provision -- Article II, section 9 -- allowing the addition of a presidential preference primary election.

And over the last two decades at least, no legislation has been proposed to add such an election. That changed during the 2018 legislative session. Bills were introduced to establish a presidential preference primary on the second Saturday in May (SB 2584) and one to create a study committee to examine the switch from caucuses to a primary (SB 2249).

No, neither bill has gone anywhere, nor are they likely to. Both are bottled up in committee, basically dead after missing legislative deadlines to move the legislation along before the 2018 session adjourns in early May. To some extent that is not exactly evidence of "energy" behind a caucus-to-primary change in Hawaii. However, most of the changes of this sort tend to occur not during midterm election years, but in the year before a presidential election year. Additionally, that anything was proposed at all is worth noting in the case of Hawaii. Again, a regular pattern had developed around caucuses and caucus scheduling, and breaking long-standing traditions is not a goal that is easily attained in the presidential nomination process.

Whether that changes in Hawaii in particular is a question for 2019. But this is a phenomenon -- caucus-to-primary shifts -- that is happening at the state level even without a national party prompt at this point in the cycle.

--
More: 2020 Presidential Primary Calendar

Thursday, January 21, 2016

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: HAWAII

Updated 3.9.16

This is part twenty-one of a series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation rules by state. The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2016 -- especially relative to 2012 -- in order to gauge the potential impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. For this cycle the RNC recalibrated its rules, cutting the proportionality window in half (March 1-14), but tightening its definition of proportionality as well. While those alterations will trigger subtle changes in reaction at the state level, other rules changes -- particularly the new binding requirement placed on state parties -- will be more noticeable. 

HAWAII

Election type: caucus
Date: March 8
Number of delegates: 19 [10 at-large, 6 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: proportional (statewide and in congressional districts)
Threshold to qualify for delegates: No official threshold
2012: proportional caucus

--
Changes since 2012
The Hawaii Republican Party rules for delegate allocation have not changed in any meaningful way as compared to the method the party operated under in 2012. The date -- the second Tuesday in March -- is the same and though Hawaii Republicans lost one at-large delegate from 2012, it is a change of just one delegate. But the small number of delegates at stake in the March 8 Hawaii Republican caucuses will be proportionally allocated based on the caucus results at both the state and congressional district level. Rather than pooling the 16 at-large and congressional district delegates, Hawaii Republicans will allocate both types separately. At-large delegates will be proportionally allocated based on the statewide results while the congressional district delegates will be awarded based on the outcome of the caucuses in each of the islands' two congressional districts.


Thresholds
There is no threshold in the Hawaii allocation process at either the state or congressional district level to qualify for delegates. However, the rounding method used by Republicans in the Aloha state both advantages the winner/top finishers and limits the number of candidates who will likely end up being allocated any delegates (see below for an illustration of this).


Delegate allocation (at-large delegates)
The Hawaii delegates will be proportionally allocated to candidates based on the outcome of the March 8 caucuses in the Aloha state. There has been no polling in the Hawaii race, but rather than make up numbers, FHQ will base the simulated allocation below on the data from ISideWith.com.1 Based on that data, the allocation of the 13 at-large and automatic delegates would look something like this2:
  • Trump (44%) -- 4.4 delegates [5 delegates]
  • Rubio (15%) -- 1.5 delegates [2 delegates]
  • Cruz (14%) -- 1.4 delegates [2 delegates]
  • Carson (10%) -- 1.0 delegates [1 delegate] 
  • Paul (5%) -- 0 delegates 
  • Bush (5%) -- 0 delegates 
  • Christie (4%) -- 0 delegates 
  • Fiorina (3%) -- 0 delegates
  • Kasich (2%) -- 0 delegates
This is where the rounding method is important. Fractional delegates always round up to the nearest whole number, but that means there is a threshold under which no one receives delegates and the last one over that barrier receives any leftover, unallocated delegates. That is because the rounding has a sequence, starting with the top votegetter and working downward through the list in the order of finish.

All of the candidates, then, round up to the next whole number despite, for example, Carson having a remainder less than .5. That leaves just one delegate left for Rand Paul by the time the sequence gets to him. Now, the junior Kentucky senator would have been allocated one delegate anyway based on pulling in 5% of the statewide vote. However, that is not the proper way of thinking about the Hawaii allocation because of the sequential rounding. Once the sequence gets to Paul, there is just one delegate left. It would be his.

Such a sequential method when coupled with always rounding up means that while there is no official threshold in Hawaii, an unofficial one will force itself into the allocation of the at-large delegates. Some candidate will be the last to be allocated delegates in the sequence and those behind that candidate will be left out of the allocation process. In this example then, that threshold is at 5%, but again, not officially.

Four years ago, all 11 at-large delegates were allocated to the top three candidates and Newt Gingrich, despite winning more than 10% of the vote had nothing to show for it. The unofficial threshold to win any delegates, then, was higher in 2012 -- around the 19% that Ron Paul received.

The main point here is not so much this threshold idea, but rather to point out that though there is no official threshold, there are limitations to who and how many candidates receive any delegates. And it should be noted that part of that is a function too of there being so few delegates in the first place.


Delegate allocation (congressional district delegates)
The same type of principle used in the allocation of the at-large delegates impacts the congressional district delegate allocation as well. There is no threshold, but as FHQ has said numerous times, there are only so many ways to proportionally allocate the three delegates the RNC apportions to each of a state's congressional districts.

The key to the allocation of the Hawaii congressional district delegates is in the rounding. Just as above, fractional delegates will be rounded up to the nearest whole number. If a candidate receives more than one-third of the vote in a congressional district, then that candidate will round up to two delegates in that district. The remaining delegate would be left to the candidate in second place in that district. If no candidate clears that 33.3% threshold in a congressional district, however, then the top three candidates would all be allocated one delegate.

This is a firmer threshold than the one discussed in the at-large example above. It is akin to some of the winner-take-all thresholds that exist in other states, but this one is specific to the allocation of two versus one delegate to the congressional district winner. To receive all three delegates -- to round up to all of them in a congressional district -- a winner would have to clear the roughly 67% barrier. That seems unlikely even with a winnowed field.


Delegate allocation
(automatic delegates)
Due to the new guidance from the RNC on the allocation and binding of the three automatic delegates, the Hawaii Republican Party could no longer leave them unbound. Rather than included them in the at-large pool of delegates as other states have done, the HIGOP has opted to separately allocated those three delegates based on the statewide results.


Given the above data from the simulation, Trump would receive two delegates and Rubio one.


Binding
Hawaii Republican delegates are bound by party rule Section 216 to candidates on the first roll call ballot at the national convention. However, those same party rules allow the candidates/campaigns some discretion in the delegate selection process. Delegates, then, may not be bound after the first ballot, but would likely remain loyal to their candidate in any subsequent vote. They would be pledged but not bound unless or until their candidate pulls his or her name from consideration.


--
State allocation rules are archived here.


--
1 I have no idea about the methodology at ISideWith. Again, this is just an exercise in how the allocation might look, but probably will not. Using their numbers is perhaps marginally better than me creating results. And yes, they sum to 102.

2 This data is being used as an example of how delegates could be allocated under these rules in Hawaii and not as a forecast of the outcome in the Aloha state caucuses.




Follow FHQ on TwitterGoogle+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.