2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: SOUTH DAKOTA

This is part fifty-three 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. 

SOUTH DAKOTA

Election type: primary
Date: June 7
Number of delegates: 29 [23 at-large, 3 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: winner-take-all
Threshold to qualify for delegates: n/a
2012: proportional primary

--
Changes since 2012
Much like New Mexico, South Dakota Republicans have traditionally had a late-calendar primary with proportional allocation of delegates. Also like New Mexico, a high qualifying threshold has tended to translate into a presumptive nominee and primary winner taking all of the delegates from the Mount Rushmore state. However, unlike New Mexico, South Dakota Republicans have made a change for 2016. The primary date is the same (first Tuesday after the first Monday in June), but the party has discarded the proportional method of allocation for a winner-take-all scheme.

Why quadrennially be backdoor winner-take-all when the national party rules allow for a straight winner-take-all allocation? Why indeed. Both the motivation and rationale for a change were clear enough. And the South Dakota Republican Party followed through.


Thresholds
In the proportional era, the threshold to qualify for delegates was 20 percent. Now however, there is no threshold for candidates to meet to qualify for delegates under a winner-take-all method.


Delegate allocation (at-large, congressional district and automatic delegates)
The allocation of South Dakota's 29 delegates are clear enough: the statewide plurality winner of the primary takes all of the state's delegates. As a one congressional district state, there is little need to split the delegates. The result is a pool delegation either proportionally allocated or all awarded to the winner. South Dakota now fits into the latter category.


Binding
The South Dakota delegates selected in March are bound to the winner of the primary for the first vote at the national convention. That is true in all cases except scenarios in which the South Dakota primary winner withdraws from the race, suspends campaign activities or does not have his or her name placed in nomination at the national convention. If someone other than the South Dakota primary winner is the only candidate placed in nomination (and the South Dakota primary winner is not), then all 29 delegates are bound to that candidate if that candidate received votes in the South Dakota primary.¹ Otherwise, the delegates are unbound on the first ballot. It is much more likely, given the late date of the primary and a likely winnowed field that the presumptive nominee will win the South Dakota primary, be the only name placed in nomination, and have the delegates from the Mount Rushmore state cast their votes for him or her.


--
State allocation rules are archived here.


--
¹ This is one method of avoiding a white knight candidate -- or someone who did not compete during the primaries -- at the national convention. Of course, such a method would have to be employed in more states than just one. The language of this rule is unique to South Dakota Republicans.


--
Recent Posts:
2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: NEW MEXICO

More Past Primary Calendar Revisionism

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: NEW JERSEY

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Earlier Convention Forcing South Dakota to Push Presidential Primary Up?

Bob Mercer, reporter with Aberdeen American News, raises the question.

--
First of all, the answer seems to be no. Mr. Mercer details well the history of South Dakota legislators moving the presidential primary in the Mount Rushmore state up to the tail end of February (from June) for the 1988 cycle and maintaining that position through 1996. The motivation for the February move, as it always seems to be, was to garner more attention for South Dakota and South Dakota issues. The problem was that the earlier primary was not an effective draw to those candidates actually seeking the nominations. That precipitated a return to June and consolidated presidential and other primaries. From 2000 onward, South Dakota has been lumped in with a small group of states at the very end of the primary calendar.

That did not mean, however, that South Dakota has not revisited the idea of an earlier presidential primary in the time since. Like a great many states in the lead up to the competitive -- on both sides -- 2008 primaries, South Dakota considered legislation to shift the presidential primary to an earlier date on the calendar. Bills met resistance in the legislature and died in both 2006 and 2007, as Mr. Mercer describes.

The 2016 presidential cycle offers, perhaps, a new wrinkle to the date-setting calculus in the later states on the calendar. That decision-making process is typically leave well enough alone if not non-existent. States at the end of the process tend to have consolidated primaries and often find the cost savings associated with one contest difficult to give up. That is no different in South Dakota.

What is different for the 2016 cycle is the push from the national parties to schedule earlier national conventions.¹ But the question Mr. Mercer poses from the South Dakota perspective is different now that the two major parties have scheduled July conventions than it was when the RNC was considering a June convention. A June convention really would have exerted some pressure on June primary states to consider earlier contests. That pressure -- mostly from the RNC side -- would have come in the form of a kind of backwards delegate selection process. For the logistics to work -- convention credentialing of delegates, etc. -- delegates would have to be selected, presumably via a caucuses/convention process, before the individual slots would be allocated to particular candidates based on the primary results.² That can make the process feel more top-down than bottom-up to rank-and-file members of a party/primary voters.

But with June off the table and two July conventions, this appears to be less of an issue for the South Dakotas and Montanas and Californias of the process, all the way at the end of the primary calendar. July conventions are not anything new. In fact, July conventions for the party out of the White House were the norm as recently as 2004. Sure, the Republican National Convention is the earliest since 1980, but there were a number of contests on that first Tuesday in June (an equivalent amount of time, then as in 2016) ahead of the convention.

Will South Dakota move? Indications at the state legislative level seem to suggest no according to Mr. Mercer. The legislators that sponsored bill during the 2008 cycle are not actively pushing legislation and do not foresee any push. Beyond that, there is not any added pressure from the national parties. The conventions will be earlier in 2016, but not in June; a time that would really have forced the primary movement issue in South Dakota and other states.

--
¹ The Republican National Committee was responsible for the majority of this push, considering June and July convention times before settling on a convention in Cleveland during the week of July 18, 2016. In a reactive move, the Democratic National Committee then set the date of their 2016 convention for a week later in a location yet to be determined.

² This sounds worse than it probably would be in practice. The reversing of the selection and allocation processes would only be consequential (controversial) if a nomination race was still competitive at that late point in the calendar. The odds are against that, however.


Recent Posts:
Pair of Bills Propose Earlier Presidential Primary in Connecticut

Companion Bills Introduced to Move Mississippi Presidential Primary into SEC Primary Position

Primary Movement, 2015 v. 2011

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

The Electoral College Map (11/3/12)

So much for lazy weekends. There were 20 new polls from 14 states on Saturday and one dated poll from Utah added to mix. Again, most of the action was in either toss up states or in the series of Lean Obama states that have seen some margin contraction over the last few weeks as the polls first drew closer then leveled off. But there were a handful of polls in a few Strong Obama/Romney states that help to round out the overall picture of the race.

[And since we mentioned Utah, I'll go ahead and comment to put your mind at ease about the Beehive state. Romney won't lose that one.]

New State Polls (11/3/12)
State	Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Obama	Romney	Undecided	Poll Margin	FHQ Margin
California	Field	10/17-10/30	+/- 2.6%	1566 likely voters	54	39	5	+15	+17.60
Florida	Mason-Dixon	10/30-11/1	+/- 3.5%	800 likely voters	45	51	4	+6	+0.24
Florida	Marist/Wall Street Journal/NBC	10/31-11/1	+/- 2.7%	1545 likely voters	49	47	2	+2	--
Georgia	Insider Advantage	11/1	+/- 4.7%	426 likely voters	42.0	54.1	3.1	+12.1	+9.38
Iowa	Mellman Group	10/30-11/1	+/- 4.0%	600 likely voters	46	44	10	+2	+2.73
Iowa	Selzer/Des Moines Register	10/30-11/2	+/- 3.5%	800 likely voters	47	42	2	+5	--
Iowa	Grove Insight	11/1-11/2	+/- 4.4%	500 likely voters	47	44	8	+3	--
Michigan	Public Policy Polling	11/1-11/3	+/- 3.7%	700 likely voters	52	46	1	+6	+5.73
Minnesota	NMB Research	10/29-10/31	+/- 4.38%	500 likely voters	45	46	--	+1	+7.34
Minnesota	Public Policy Polling	11/1-11/3	+/- 2.9%	1164 likely voters	53	45	2	+8	--
New Hampshire	Gravis Marketing	11/1	+/- 4.3%	497 likely voters	50	49	1	+1	+3.10
New Hampshire	University of New Hampshire/WMUR	10/31-11/2	+/- 4.4%	502 likely voters	48	48	3	0	--
Ohio	Marist/Wall Street Journal/NBC	10/31-11/1	+/- 3.1%	971 likely voters	51	45	3	+6	+2.92
Ohio	Grove Insight	11/1-11/2	+/- 4.4%	500 likely voters	49	45	4	+4	--
Oregon	Public Policy Polling	10/31-11/1	+/- 3.2%	921 registered voters	52	46	3	+6	+6.19
Pennsylvania	Public Policy Polling	11/2-11/3	+/- 3.5%	790 likely voters	52	46	1	+6	+5.95
South Dakota	Nielson Brothers Polling	10/28-10/31	+/- 3.53%	795 likely voters	42	50	8	+8	+9.96
Utah	BYU/Key Research	10/9-10/13	+/- 4.4%	500 likely voters	20	71	9	+51	+45.33
Utah	Dan Jones	10/26-11/1	+/- 3.4%	870 registered voters	26	69	--	+43	--
Washington	Public Policy Polling	11/1-11/3	+/- 3.2%	932 likely voters	53	46	1	+7	+13.33
Wisconsin	Grove Insight	11/1-11/2	+/- 4.4%	500 likely voters	48	42	8	+6	+4.60

There was little that changed the overall outlook on the electoral college here at FHQ given the day's polling. Romney was quite strong in the states he was already just fine in and Obama continued to get some good results in the toss up and lean (Obama) states. Public Policy Polling was the most prolific firm on the day (with five total surveys) and the results largely followed the FHQ rank order of states. Michigan, Oregon and Pennsylvania were all bunched together at Obama +6 -- just as they are in the FHQ weighted averages -- and Minnesota was, as here at FHQ, on the Obama side of that group of states. The lone exception to that rule was Washington. It settled in in between Minnesota and that aforementioned group; much closer than our averages have it. Washington state has now slipped into the furthest column to the left on the Electoral College Spectrum below, but PPP has had it closer for the last couple of polls it has conducted in the Evergreen state.

Florida and Ohio should probably also be mentioned. There were polar opposites coming out of the Sunshine state from Mason-Dixon and Marist. The former was more favorable to Romney than the latter. Marist also had the race for Ohio at Obama +6 which is outside where most recent polling has had it. If the Florida poll from the Marist/Wall Street Journal/NBC was similarly Obama-favorable, then that may say something about which one of the two Florida polls was closer to reality. In truth, the answer in the last week has been somewhere in the middle. The average here at FHQ has the balance tipped the slightest of margins -- just 0.24% at this point -- toward the president, but the polling in October has probably inched a little closer to Romney.

The map (changes since 11/2): No change. Obama: 332, Romney 206.

The Electoral College Spectrum (changes since 11/2): No change.

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 11/2): No change among the toss up states.
South Dakota enters the list and is within a fraction of a point of shifting into the Lean Romney category.

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
South Dakota	from Strong Romney	to Lean Romney
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:

Frequently Asked Questions about FHQ graduated weighted average methodology.
&
An Update on how to read it in 2012.

Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (11/2/12)

The Electoral College Map (11/1/12)

Live by the 3, Die by the 3 (...and other thoughts on what November 6, 2012 is testing)

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

The Electoral College Map (10/13/12)

For a rather pedestrian Saturday just over three weeks out from election day, there were actually a handful of meaningful polls released that refined our outlook in a couple of states. The remainder offered results that were out of step with where the FHQ weighted averages now stand. All told there were four new polls from four states and FHQ added a dated survey from South Dakota as well.

New State Polls (10/13/12)
State	Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Obama	Romney	Undecided	Poll Margin	FHQ Margin
Arizona	Behavior Research Center	10/4-10/10	+/- 4.4%	523 registered voters	42	40	13	+2	+6.35
Minnesota	NMB Research	10/7-10/8	+/- 4.38%	500 likely voters	47	43	--	+4	+8.63
Ohio	Public Policy Polling	10/12-10/13	+/- 3.3%	880 likely voters	51	46	3	+5	+3.46
South Dakota	Nielson Brothers Polling	8/29-9/6	+/- 4.3%	512 likely voters	38.7	53.9	--	+15.2	+10.73
South Dakota	Nielson Brothers Polling	10/1-10/5	+/- 3.55%	762 likely voters	41.1	51.6	7.2	+10.5	--

Polling Quick Hits:
Arizona:
Why not start with one of those polls that is not consistent with the picture built throughout a year's worth of polling? President Obama has led in exactly one poll in the Grand Canyon state in 2012. That was back in April and also came from Behavior Research -- the last poll the firm conducted there. The count then? Yeah, Obama edge Romney in that one too by the very same 42-40 margin. That is coincidence and that's fine. What isn't is the idea that there are still 13% of Arizonan who have not decided in this race. Outlier. Moving on.

Minnesota:

Changes (October 13)
State	Before	After
Minnesota	Lean Obama	Strong Obama
South Dakota	Lean Romney	Strong Romney

Up in the Land of 10,000 Lakes, NMB Research weighs in with its first publicly available survey of the cycle; one that differs somewhat from the survey PPP that partially overlapped with this poll in the field. NMB finds a tighter race than PPP did, and one with the narrowest margin in any poll there all year. The poll shifts Minnesota over the Strong/Lean line into the Lean Obama category, but only barely. As FHQ has mentioned in the past instance(s) when Minnesota has ventured over into Lean Obama territory, this jibes well (or better) with our broader conception of the state's place in the overall ordering of states. It is a little to the left of neighboring Michigan and Wisconsin, but "looks better" in the same category with those states. The truth is that Minnesota has hovered on the Strong/Lean line since the thresholds were lowered at the beginning of October. This is more a cosmetic change than anything else.

Ohio:
The latest from PPP in Ohio is one of those polls that doesn't "feel right" given the post-debate shift nationally and in the Buckeye state. However, PPP is not alone in showing Obama north of the 50% mark in the state following the October 3 Denver debate. CNN and Marist have also indicated similar response shares for Obama and leads over Mitt Romney. Of the now nine post-debate polls conducted in Ohio after the first presidential debate, a third of them have shown this type of lead for the president while the rest have the race +1 for either candidate. The point is that while +/- 1 is perhaps closer to the reality of the race, there is some evidence to suggest the margin is still slightly more toward the president. Of course, two-thirds of the post-debate data...

South Dakota:
FHQ won't dwell on South Dakota other than to say that the scant level of polling in the Mount Rushmore state had indicated a closer race there than in some of its neighboring states. That has now been remedied with the addition of a couple of Nielson Brothers surveys with Mitt Romney up double digits. That stretches the average out to over 10 points and brings the state in line with Montana, Nebraska and North Dakota; all states bordering South Dakota.

With the changes to Minnesota and South Dakota, the map has a couple of changes but perhaps not where folks would expect; in the underlying electoral vote count. That tally has remained intact since the very first run in this series of posts back in mid-July. Given those changes on the map, there are some attendant shifts on the Electoral College Spectrum below. South Dakota jumps six positions deeper into the Romney side of the ledger. Again, it is now in line with several neighboring states. Arizona, on the strength of the one outlier poll, drew closer and is now the closest of the Lean Romney states. Granted, none of those states is within reach for the president. In fact, the three lean states that are left on Romney's side have all been stationed there with little or no movement for quite a while now. The only other state that might have moved was Minnesota. And while it is shaded differently than it was, the Land of 10,000 Lakes holds the line in between New Mexico and Oregon.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
VT-3 (6)2	WA-12 (158)	NV-6 (257)	MT-3 (159)	MS-6 (58)
HI-4 (10)	NJ-14 (172)	OH-183 (275/281)	IN-11 (156)	KY-8 (52)
RI-4 (14)	CT-7 (179)	IA-6 (281/263)	GA-16 (145)	AL-9 (44)
NY-29 (43)	NM-5 (184)	VA-13 (294/257)	SD-3 (129)	KS-6 (35)
MD-10 (53)	MN-10 (194)	CO-9 (303/244)	SC-9 (126)	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)	ND-3 (112)	OK-7 (20)
CA-55 (139)	MI-16 (237)	AZ-11 (191)	TX-38 (109)	ID-4 (13)
DE-3 (142)	WI-10 (247)	MO-10 (180)	WV-5 (71)	WY-3 (9)
ME-4 (146)	NH-4 (251)	TN-11 (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.

While Minnesota did not change slots on the Spectrum, it has shifted on the Watch List. Instead of being on the Strong Obama state with the narrowest margin, Minnesota is now the Lean Obama state with the widest margin. It continues to hover on that line. Further south, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Ohio are all closer states that bear watching as the race approaches the three week mark.

The Watch List1
State	Switch
Florida	from Toss Up Obama	to Toss Up Romney
Indiana	from Strong Romney	to Lean Romney
Minnesota	from Lean Obama	to Strong Obama
Montana	from Strong Romney	to Lean Romney
Nevada	from Toss Up Obama	to Lean Obama
New Hampshire	from Lean Obama	to Toss Up Obama
Ohio	from Toss Up Obama	to Lean 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:

Frequently Asked Questions about FHQ graduated weighted average methodology.
&
An Update on how to read it in 2012.

Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (10/12/12)

The Electoral College Map (10/11/12)

2012 Debates: Vice Presidential Debate Open Thread

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