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.
Showing posts with label Hawaii. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hawaii. Show all posts
Monday, May 18, 2020
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
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.
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
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
--
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
Pair of Presidential Primary Bills Fail 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
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:
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.
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
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
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.
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Hawaii Republicans Confirm March 8 Presidential Caucuses for 2016
The Hawaii Republican Party convened its 2015 state convention during the weekend of May 2. On the agenda for the delegates in attendance was a routine reexamination of the rules that govern the party and its procedures.
One item that was not seriously debated or at least altered in the rules was the date of the caucuses that will initiate the 2016 national delegate selection/allocation process for Republicans in the Aloha state. Set for the second Tuesday in March under the 2013 rules -- the 2011 rules as well -- that provision was carried over to 2015 rules.
That position will place the Hawaii Republican caucuses on the same date as the Idaho primary, Michigan primary and Mississippi primary on the 2016 presidential primary calendar. Alabama and Ohio are both looking to move away from that date. North Carolina has active legislation to shift into that date.
One item that was not seriously debated or at least altered in the rules was the date of the caucuses that will initiate the 2016 national delegate selection/allocation process for Republicans in the Aloha state. Set for the second Tuesday in March under the 2013 rules -- the 2011 rules as well -- that provision was carried over to 2015 rules.
That position will place the Hawaii Republican caucuses on the same date as the Idaho primary, Michigan primary and Mississippi primary on the 2016 presidential primary calendar. Alabama and Ohio are both looking to move away from that date. North Carolina has active legislation to shift into that date.
Monday, April 6, 2015
March 26 Caucuses for Hawaii Democrats in 2016
The Democratic Party of Hawaii on Friday, April 3 released for public comment the draft of its 2016 delegate selection plan.1 As FHQ has done with several other caucuses states so far, the focus here will be on the proposed date of the Hawaii Democratic caucuses. These draft plans must first be opened to public comment before being submitted to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee for final approval or requested changes.
Like Washington state before it, Hawaii Democrats have zeroed in on Saturday, March 26 precinct meetings as the "first determining step" in its delegate selection/allocation process. The late March date is approximately three weeks later than the Wednesday, March 7 calendar position Aloha state Democrats used for its precinct meetings in 2012. Such a late March caucuses date would represent the latest date on which the Hawaii Democrats have begun their delegate selection process in the post-reform era. During that period, Hawaii Democrats have caucused no later than the second Tuesday in March.
NOTE: FHQ will pencil these dates in on the 2016 presidential primary calendar, but please note that the plans are not finalized and are still subject to change. With very few exceptions, though, the dates in the 2012 draft plans for caucuses states did not change.
--
1 The above link is to the plan on the Democratic Party of Hawaii site. FHQ will also keep a version of the plan here.
Like Washington state before it, Hawaii Democrats have zeroed in on Saturday, March 26 precinct meetings as the "first determining step" in its delegate selection/allocation process. The late March date is approximately three weeks later than the Wednesday, March 7 calendar position Aloha state Democrats used for its precinct meetings in 2012. Such a late March caucuses date would represent the latest date on which the Hawaii Democrats have begun their delegate selection process in the post-reform era. During that period, Hawaii Democrats have caucused no later than the second Tuesday in March.
NOTE: FHQ will pencil these dates in on the 2016 presidential primary calendar, but please note that the plans are not finalized and are still subject to change. With very few exceptions, though, the dates in the 2012 draft plans for caucuses states did not change.
--
1 The above link is to the plan on the Democratic Party of Hawaii site. FHQ will also keep a version of the plan here.
Friday, November 2, 2012
The Electoral College Map (11/2/12)
24 new polls from 17 states closed out the final work week before election day. Additionally, there were two other surveys from earlier in October factored in as well from a couple of non-competitive states -- Maine and Nebraska.
This was another seemingly good polling day for the Obama campaign on the state level. Among the toss up states, the president held small leads in Colorado and Virginia (tier one states) and more comfortable advantages in polls in states like New Hampshire, Ohio and Iowa; those Tier two states. Also, there was a bit more distance between the president and Mitt Romney in the Tier three states, Nevada and Wisconsin. Strategically, Romney has to do well in at least the Tier one and Tier two states. And by do well, I mean nearly sweep them. The former Massachusetts governor could -- if the order of states below in the Electoral College Spectrum holds -- cede New Hampshire or Iowa, or Colorado and still get to 270 with North Carolina, Florida, Virginia and Ohio. But Romney would have to have two of those three smaller states to get there. If the rank order is correct, New Hampshire would be that state.
From the Obama perspective, it is still a matter of holding Nevada and Wisconsin (along with the other Lean Obama states where the margins have contracted) and tacking on Ohio or Virginia and New Hampshire for example to just push north of 270. But there are a number of other combinations of paths to 270 for the president as well if polling like that above continues to come in.
The map (changes since 11/1):
No change in the overall tally. Obama: 332, Romney: 206.
Nevada barely shifts back into the Lean Obama category (> 4%).
The Electoral College Spectrum (changes since 11/1): No change in the order among the toss up states.
Nevada holds its position but slides into the Lean category.
Maine and Washington trade places.
The Watch List (changes since 11/1): Nevada, given the shift above, is now within a fraction of a point of moving back into the Toss Up Obama category. Put simply, the Silver state is going to hug that line the rest of the way without a significant change in the polling data there.
Please see:
New State Polls (11/2/12)
| |||||||||
State
|
Poll
|
Date
|
Margin of Error
|
Sample
|
Obama
|
Romney
|
Undecided
|
Poll Margin
|
FHQ Margin
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Colorado
|
10/28-10/31
|
+/- 3.8%
|
695 likely voters
|
47
|
45
|
--
|
+2
|
+1.65
| |
Colorado
|
10/31-11/1
|
+/- -.-%
|
825 likely voters
|
50
|
46
|
4
|
+4
|
--
| |
Connecticut
|
11/1-11/2
|
+/- 2.8%
|
1220 likely voters
|
55
|
42
|
3
|
+13
|
+11.64
| |
Georgia
|
10/29-10/31
|
+/- 2.7%
|
1316 likely voters
|
46
|
52
|
1
|
+6
|
+9.04
| |
Hawaii
|
10/24-10/26
|
+/- 2.8%
|
1218 likely voters
|
61
|
34
|
5
|
+27
|
+29.35
| |
Indiana
|
10/28-10/30
|
+/- 3.5%
|
800 likely voters
|
41
|
50
|
--
|
+9
|
+12.01
| |
Indiana
|
10/31-11/1
|
+/- 4.0%
|
600 likely voters
|
41
|
54
|
5
|
+13
|
--
| |
Iowa
|
11/1
|
+/- 4.0%
|
594 likely voters
|
49
|
45
|
6
|
+4
|
+2.67
| |
Maine
|
10/7-10/8
|
+/- 4.0%
|
500 likely voters
|
48
|
44
|
--
|
+4
|
+13.21
| |
Maine
|
11/1-11/2
|
+/- 2.4%
|
1633 likely voters
|
55
|
42
|
2
|
+13
|
--
| |
Massachusetts
|
10/31-11/1
|
+/- 3.48%
|
761 likely voters
|
54.0
|
41.4
|
4.6
|
+12.6
|
+19.56
| |
Massachusetts
|
11/1-11/2
|
+/- 3.0%
|
1089 likely voters
|
57
|
42
|
2
|
+15
|
--
| |
Michigan
|
10/31-11/1
|
+/- -.-%
|
500 likely voters
|
52
|
46
|
2
|
+6
|
+5.72
| |
Michigan
|
10/31-11/1
|
+/- 4.4%
|
500 registered voters
|
48
|
41
|
9
|
+7
|
--
| |
Michigan
|
11/1
|
+/- 4.0%
|
750 likely voters
|
52
|
47
|
1
|
+5
|
--
| |
Minnesota
|
10/31-11/1
|
+/- -.-%
|
772 likely voters
|
53
|
44
|
3
|
+9
|
+7.90
| |
Montana
|
10/28-10/31
|
+/- 3.5%
|
800 likely voters
|
41
|
49
|
--
|
+8
|
+9.11
| |
Nebraska
|
10/23-10/25
|
+/- 3.8%
|
679 likely voters
|
38
|
52
|
--
|
+14
|
+13.76
| |
Nebraska
|
11/1
|
+/- 2.95%
|
1178 likely voters
|
41
|
54
|
3
|
+13
|
--
| |
Nevada
|
10/29-10/31
|
+/- 4.0%
|
600 likely voters
|
50
|
44
|
4
|
+6
|
+4.06
| |
New Hampshire
|
10/29-10/31
|
+/- 3.7%
|
1017 likely voters
|
50
|
44
|
4
|
+6
|
+3.30
| |
Ohio
|
10/30-11/1
|
+/- 2.6%
|
1649 likely voters
|
50
|
46
|
--
|
+4
|
+2.86
| |
Ohio
|
10/30-11/1
|
+/- 3.5%
|
796 likely voters
|
50
|
47
|
3
|
+3
|
--
| |
Ohio
|
11/1
|
+/- 4.0%
|
750 likely voters
|
49
|
49
|
1
|
0
|
--
| |
Virginia
|
10/30-11/1
|
+/- 3.0%
|
1069 likely voters
|
49
|
48
|
--
|
+1
|
+1.69
| |
Wisconsin
|
10/30-11/1
|
+/- 3.0%
|
1210 likely voters
|
52
|
45
|
--
|
+7
|
+4.57
| |
This was another seemingly good polling day for the Obama campaign on the state level. Among the toss up states, the president held small leads in Colorado and Virginia (tier one states) and more comfortable advantages in polls in states like New Hampshire, Ohio and Iowa; those Tier two states. Also, there was a bit more distance between the president and Mitt Romney in the Tier three states, Nevada and Wisconsin. Strategically, Romney has to do well in at least the Tier one and Tier two states. And by do well, I mean nearly sweep them. The former Massachusetts governor could -- if the order of states below in the Electoral College Spectrum holds -- cede New Hampshire or Iowa, or Colorado and still get to 270 with North Carolina, Florida, Virginia and Ohio. But Romney would have to have two of those three smaller states to get there. If the rank order is correct, New Hampshire would be that state.
From the Obama perspective, it is still a matter of holding Nevada and Wisconsin (along with the other Lean Obama states where the margins have contracted) and tacking on Ohio or Virginia and New Hampshire for example to just push north of 270. But there are a number of other combinations of paths to 270 for the president as well if polling like that above continues to come in.
The map (changes since 11/1):
| Changes (November 2) | |||
| State | Before | After | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nevada | Toss Up Obama | Lean Obama | |
Nevada barely shifts back into the Lean Obama category (> 4%).
The Electoral College Spectrum (changes since 11/1): No change in the order among the toss up states.
Nevada holds its position but slides into the Lean category.
Maine and Washington trade places.
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
VT-3
(6)2
|
ME-4
(158)
|
NH-4
(257)
|
GA-16
(167)
|
MS-6
(58)
|
HI-4
(10)
|
NJ-14
(172)
|
OH-183
(275/281)
|
SD-3
(151)
|
KY-8
(52)
|
NY-29
(39)
|
CT-7
(179)
|
IA-6
(281/263)
|
SC-9
(148)
|
AL-9
(44)
|
RI-4
(43)
|
NM-5
(184)
|
VA-13
(294/257)
|
IN-11
(139)
|
KS-6
(35)
|
MD-10
(53)
|
MN-10
(194)
|
CO-9
(303/244)
|
TN-11
(128)
|
AR-6
(29)
|
MA-11
(64)
|
OR-7
(201)
|
FL-29
(332/235)
|
NE-5
(117)
|
AK-3
(23)
|
IL-20
(84)
|
PA-20
(221)
|
NC-15
(206)
|
WV-5
(112)
|
OK-7
(20)
|
CA-55
(139)
|
MI-16
(237)
|
AZ-11
(191)
|
TX-38
(107)
|
ID-4
(13)
|
DE-3
(142)
|
WI-10
(247)
|
MO-10
(180)
|
ND-3
(69)
|
WY-3
(9)
|
WA-12
(154)
|
NV-6
(253)
|
MT-3
(170)
|
LA-8
(66)
|
UT-6
(6)
|
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.
2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Romney won all the states up to and including Ohio (all Obama's toss up states plus Ohio), he would have 281 electoral votes. Romney's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and Romney's is on the right in italics. 3 Ohio is the state where Obama crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. | ||||
The Watch List (changes since 11/1): Nevada, given the shift above, is now within a fraction of a point of moving back into the Toss Up Obama category. Put simply, the Silver state is going to hug that line the rest of the way without a significant change in the polling data there.
The Watch List1
| |||
State
|
Switch
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
Florida
|
from Toss Up Obama
|
to Toss Up Romney
| |
Georgia
|
from Strong Romney
|
to Lean Romney
| |
Montana
|
from Strong Romney
|
to Lean Romney
| |
Nevada
|
from Lean Obama
|
to Toss Up Obama
| |
New Hampshire
|
from Toss Up Obama
|
to Lean Obama
| |
Wisconsin
|
from Lean Obama
|
to Toss Up Obama
| |
1 The Watch list shows those states in the FHQ Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories. The List is not a trend analysis. It indicates which states are straddling the line between categories and which states are most likely to shift given the introduction of new polling data. Montana, for example, is close to being a Lean Romney state, but the trajectory of the polling there has been moving the state away from that lean distinction.
| |||
Please see:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)