On the Shifting/Not Shifting of Michigan Delegate Allocation Rules

Allow FHQ a to make a few comments on the news today that the Michigan Republican Party would allocate its two at-large delegates to Mitt Romney -- winner-take-all -- instead of splitting them proportionally between the former Massachusetts governor and Rick Santorum.

Look, the optics of this are bad. Rightly or wrongly, the decision by the Michigan Republican Party to allocate its two at-large delegates winner-take-all will get lumped in with the "one winner, then another" Iowa caucuses, the "let's count this precinct, but not this one" Maine caucuses and the painfully slow Nevada vote tabulation. They are all matters that make the state parties look incompetent and/or as if the process is or was being "pushed" toward a specific outcome. At its best, this is just a series of bad coincidences, but at its worst it gives the perception that the process is rigged. And that's dangerous territory. It is that very type of thing that can very quickly push this from a competitive race to a divisive one, pitting factions of the party against each other. Again, can. When the argument is one candidate or another, that's one thing. But if the argument is one candidate or another and there's an element of unfairness, it has a way a elevating the tension within a political party at all levels.

And it isn't like this is a foreign concept. The Democratic nomination race in 2008 was rife with this vein of discussion. There was a reason the Democratic Change Commission reexamined the caucus rules in 2009-10 and attempted to develop a uniform "best practices" for how to conduct caucuses. It was because the Clinton campaign cried foul that the Obama campaign was exploiting -- well within the rules -- the rules structure in caucus states to win more delegates. That the Obama campaign could turnout enough supporters in ruby red Idaho, for instance, and run up the score -- both in votes and how those votes translated to and rounded up to delegates -- while Clinton focused on big delegate prizes like California which yielded little in the way of anything resembling a big delegate margin was eye-opening.

...but it was within the rules.

And to be clear, what happened in Iowa was within the rules. The Republican Party of Iowa just messed up in calling it for Mitt Romney. What happened in Nevada was within the rules. Sure, it took Nevada Republicans an eternity to count a relatively small number of votes, but as FHQ argued at the time, after Iowa, wouldn't you -- as a party -- rather be safe than sorry. What happened in Maine was within the rules. The party defined when caucuses should be held and that if you were late and outside of that window, the votes would not be counted in the non-binding straw poll. The Maine Republican Party stuck to that.

But this Michigan situation is different. Since the party and its delegation to the Tampa convention were penalized for holding the primary too early, the party had to revise its method of allocation to meet the reduced number of total delegates. That meant, as FHQ has explained, that each of the fourteen congressional districts were apportioned two delegates and that the remaining two delegates out of the 30 total delegates (after the penalty) were at-large. The regular rules -- unpenalized -- called for the congressional district delegates to be allocated winner-take-all based on the vote in each of the congressional districts. The plan the MIGOP adopted initially -- again, pre-penalty -- was to allocate at-large delegates proportionally to candidates who received over 15% of the statewide vote. But when the  Michigan Republican Party State Committee met on February 4, they proposed, voted on and adopted a set of delegate allocation rules with language implying a winner-take-all allocation of those two at-large delegates.

Well, there you go. It is winner-take-all.

It is winner-take-all according to the language of the rule.¹ But that is not apparently what the party was telling news organizations, informing the campaigns about in memorandum form or what the communications director told me. I can only relate to you what Mr. Frendewey told me when I called to clarify the allocation method for these two delegates. I approached the party with a simple question: Given that the RNC rules require and that the plan crafted by the Michigan Republican Party (and signed off on by the RNC) a proportional allocation of those at-large delegates, are those two delegates actually winner-take-all? Can they be proportional? Again, the February 4 rule is pretty clear. It more than implies the allocation method is winner-take-all. There is no mention of proportionality anywhere in the small list of five rules, but the response I got was that a proportional allocation of those two delegates was possible if the vote was close enough.

The vote on February 28 was close enough. For Mitt Romney to have gotten both delegates he would have had to have won over 75% of the statewide vote for the delegate allocation to round up to two delegates and have Santorum's allocation -- assuming his vote was over 25% -- round down to zero delegates. That was not how the statewide vote looked Tuesday night, though.

There is more than enough evidence to suggest that the party voted on and passed a winner-take-all plan for the at-large delegates but told enough outside parties that it was proportional -- or in my conversation with them, could be proportional -- that it appears at the very least misleading if not intentionally so. FHQ is not suggesting that there was any intent to mislead, but the Michigan Republican Party has some explaining to do beyond just saying it messed up in a memo.

Again, this is different than what has happened elsewhere, but at least in Iowa, Nevada and Maine, the parties laid out the rules and stuck to them. The Michigan Republican Party may have too, but they will have to find a way to reconcile the fact that the rule was written one way and several people told enough folks outside of the party that the actual allocation was different from that rule.

And all of this over one delegate.

--
¹ The rule in question: "The statewide winner will receive two delegates (three, if you’re counting all the seated delegates)."


Recent Posts:
Race to 1144: Arizona Primary

Idaho House Bill to Eliminate Presidential Primary Passes State Senate

Romney is the Winner in Wyoming Straw Poll

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

Race to 1144: Arizona Primary

Source:
Contest Delegates (via contest results and rules, and RNC)
Automatic Delegates (Democratic Convention Watch)

Delegate breakdown (post-Arizona primary):
Romney: 120 delegates (New Hampshire: 7, South Carolina: 2, Florida: 50, Nevada: 14, Arizona: 29, Automatic: 18)
Gingrich: 32 delegates (South Carolina: 23, Nevada: 6, Automatic: 3)
Paul: 8 delegates (New Hampshire: 3, Nevada: 5)¹
Santorum: 4 delegates (Nevada: 3, Automatic: 1)
Unbound: 126 delegates (Iowa: 25, Colorado: 33, Minnesota: 37, Maine: 21 Automatic: 8, Huntsman: 2)

--
In the same way that Rick Santorum was able to win every county in the beauty contest primary in Missouri on February 7, Mitt Romney accomplished the same feat with 29 delegates on the line Tuesday night in Arizona. Romney scored a decisive victory on the same scale as his victory in similarly winner-take-all Florida at the end of January. The additional delegate boost from the Grand Canyon state pushes the former Massachusetts governor's delegate margin to level approaching one hundred delegates.² In that sense -- counting Michigan or not -- Mitt Romney ever so slightly padded his delegate lead on February 28.

A few other notes:

• The unbound delegate total did not -- and will not when Michigan is added into the mix -- change because of what happened on Tuesday. Due to the penalties both Michigan and Arizona incurred for holding delegate selection events at odds with the RNC rules on primary/caucus timing, both states not only lost half of their delegations but were stripped of their automatic delegates in the process. 
• When will we hear about a challenge to the winner-take-all allocation of the Arizona delegates? It has been all quiet on the western front to this point. A strictly proportional allocation of Arizona's delegates would have netted Romney 15 delegates, Santorum 9 delegates and Gingrich  the remaining 5 delegates, assuming a 15% threshold for winning delegates. 
• Of course, if the delegate total would have been split into a proportional allocation of at-large delegates and a winner-take-all allocation of congressional district delegates (by congressional district vote), Romney likely would have taken 24 delegates, Santorum 3 and Gingrich 2. That's based on Romney winning all nine congressional districts and taking approximately half of the at-large, statewide delegates (assuming a 15% threshold for winning any delegates). The most likely plan would have largely resembled the Michigan plan. With two delegates allocated to each of the nine congressional districts there would have been 18 congressional district delegates and 11 at-large delegates. Again, this is a hypothetical plan that could be used in the event of a successful challenge to the Arizona delegate allocation plan.
• This is great illustration of how different the two parties conceptions on proportional can be when implemented. The former scenario with a 15% threshold yields a fairly mathematically proportional allocation. But the latter, congressional district plan is not nearly so proportional. In the case of a sweeping victory like what Romney enjoyed in Arizona or Gingrich in South Carolina, such a method of allocation will advantage the winner in the zero-sum game of delegate allocation. 

--

--
¹ Iowa Republican Party Chairman Spiker was a part of the Paul campaign in Iowa and resigned his position upon taking up the post of party chair. While he has expressed his intent to side with whomever the Republican nominee will be, Spiker has not also directly signaled any neutrality in the race. The door is open for his support of Paul at a potential contested convention. While FHQ does not include Spiker in Paul's delegate total, it is however necessary to make note of the possible addition of one delegate that would bring the Texas congressman's total to nine.

² Though the Michigan vote and thus delegate count is not official, a 15-15 delegate split in the Great Lakes state between Romney and Santorum would stretch Romney's lead to over one hundred delegates. FHQ will not add Michigan to the total until the vote tabulation is complete there. That is, assuming there is no controversy over the Michigan delegate allocation, it will be split 15-15.


Recent Posts:
Idaho House Bill to Eliminate Presidential Primary Passes State Senate

Romney is the Winner in Wyoming Straw Poll

Santorum Inches Closer in Wyoming Straw Poll

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

Idaho House Bill to Eliminate Presidential Primary Passes State Senate

Idaho House bill H 391 has passed the state Senate, and as of yesterday, has moved on to Governor Butch Otter (R) for his consideration. The bill, in light of the Idaho Republican Party decision late last year to abandon the primary in favor of an earlier caucus for the purpose of allocating delegates, eliminates the presidential primary line from the May primary ballot. Idaho Democrats have traditionally utilized a caucus process separate from the primary and with the Republican Party following suit for 2012, the presidential preference portion of the ballot became superfluous (especially considering it would fall well after the delegate selection process began in both parties).

The bill carries no limited financial savings and is more of a technical redefinition of the election laws that detail the nomination process in the Gem state. The expectation is that the bill will be signed, but the two chambers of the legislature cast decidedly different votes on the measure; sending mixed signals. The House passed the legislation by a nearly 5:1 margin while the Senate required a tie-breaking vote from the president of the Senate for it to pass there.

Recent Posts:
Romney is the Winner in Wyoming Straw Poll

Santorum Inches Closer in Wyoming Straw Poll

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Georgia

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

Romney is the Winner in Wyoming Straw Poll

Mitt Romney has won the Wyoming Republican Party precinct caucuses straw poll. The former Massachusetts governor placed second to Ron Paul in the final precinct/county vote in Sweetwater County. But the dirty little secret of the Wyoming delegate selection process is that while the straw poll had to add the numbers from Sweetwater to the tabulation, the set up for the delegate allocation at the county conventions next week was over last night. That is because Sweetwater County is one of the eleven counties that will only select an alternate delegate to attend the national convention from the county convention. Now, to be sure, what happened at the precinct caucuses this evening will still have an impact on the selection of at-large delegates from the April state convention, but it will be as part of the total gathering at the state convention.

The more important question is what can we glean from the results of the caucuses that will select delegates -- not alternates -- to the national convention next week. As long time FHQ reader, Scott, pointed out on Twitter to me this morning (and before I had a chance to look myself, too!), out of the 12 counties, Romney won the straw poll in five, Santorum in four others and Paul took the remaining three.  Will that be how those 12 delegates are allocated next week at the county conventions? My strong hunch is that it will be, but as is the case in many of the caucus states thus far, there is nothing to suggest that Romney pushed more precinct-to-county level delegates through than Santorum, then Paul, then Gingrich. Much will depend on how that vote -- the county convention delegate vote -- went rather than the snapshot the straw poll provides.

[To review the delegate selection rules the Wyoming Republican Party is using click here.]


Source: Wyoming Republican Party

Recent Posts:
Santorum Inches Closer in Wyoming Straw Poll

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Georgia

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Alaska

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

Santorum Inches Closer in Wyoming Straw Poll

With just one final county left to hold precinct caucuses (Sweetwater County later today), Rick Santorum has slightly closed the gap on Mitt Romney in the Wyoming precinct caucuses straw poll. The former Pennsylvania senator shaved about 40 votes off of Romney's 170 lead in the latest round of votes in Converse, Park and Platte Counties on Tuesday evening. That pulls Romney under 40% with Santorum closing in on a third of the overall vote. Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich lag behind in the count with 20% and 8% of the straw poll, respectively (click on the most recent date at the bottom of the spreadsheet for the latest total).


Source: Wyoming Republican Party
[Click date for latest total]


Again, this is all part of a non-binding straw poll that leads up to the county conventions beginning on Super Tuesday; a step in the process where 12 delegates to the national convention.


Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Georgia

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Alaska

Romney Still Ahead in Wyoming Precinct Caucus Straw Poll Count

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Georgia

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

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

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


GEORGIA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Alaska

Romney Still Ahead in Wyoming Precinct Caucus Straw Poll Count

Patterns in the Republican Primaries?

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Alaska

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

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

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


ALASKA

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

Not so fast.

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

As the Alaska Republican Party states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Patterns in the Republican Primaries?

On the Nature of 2012 RNC Rules Changes

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

Romney Still Ahead in Wyoming Precinct Caucus Straw Poll Count

FHQ will not spend too much time discussing the addition of 20 total votes from Niobrara County, Wyoming (click on the most recent date at the bottom of the spreadsheet for the latest total), but needless to say those votes did not alter the general pattern that has developed across counties thus far in the Equality state. Mitt Romney leads and even though he only captured three votes out of twenty in a county that Ron Paul won, it was still a better showing than the goose egg Rick Santorum put up there. The former Massachusetts governor still retains a better than 170 vote advantage with just a handful of counties yet to vote.

There are three more counties to hold their precinct caucuses and straw poll vote and one other (Converse County) where the caucuses that started on Monday will wrap up tonight. The straw poll/precinct caucus portion of the process will be complete on Wednesday.


Source: Wyoming Republican Party
[Click date for latest total]

For more on Wyoming see here and here.

Recent Posts:
Patterns in the Republican Primaries?

On the Nature of 2012 RNC Rules Changes

Romney Leading in Wyoming Precinct Caucus Votes

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

Patterns in the Republican Primaries?

Mark Murray oversimplifies the course of the Republican nomination race in his piece over at First Read today.

Just when it looks like Romney is about pull away with the nomination, he loses. And just when it appears that his back is against the wall and when he needs a win, he does.

Look FHQ is all for parsimonious hypotheses, but Murray is doing a little narrative setting here. If only we can just get some Romney wins tomorrow, we'll be set up nicely for a story about Romney underperforming next week on Super Tuesday. The simple truth of the matter is that it is a foregone conclusion that Romney will underperform on some level next week. And the reasoning is just as seemingly simplistic as the misguided pattern above.

1) Regional patterns
I don't think we have enough total data on this yet, but FHQ is still fairly confident in saying that the South is a problem area for Romney (see South Carolina), but that the northeast is comparatively stronger for the former Massachusetts governor. Will Romney have some setbacks in the South next week? Yes, I would say that he will in the wins and losses columns. However, the fact that only Paul and Romney are on the ballot in Virginia means that Romney is well-positioned to use the Old Dominion as a delegate cache to neutralize any delegate losses suffered in Georgia, Oklahoma and Tennessee. The big question mark at this time is the midwest. There has yet to be a midwestern primary -- until Michigan -- from which we will have the ability to project onto subsequent midwestern primaries like Ohio on Super Tuesday. From the look of it, Michigan -- and perhaps the rest of the midwest -- will be competitive.

2) Contest/Organization patterns
Romney does well in primaries. Romney does better in primaries in which he can bank early votes (see Florida and Arizona). Romney does well in caucus states in which he has organized (see Iowa and Nevada). Romney does poorly in caucuses in which he has not organized or not organized as much relative to those early caucuses.

What does this all mean for Super Tuesday? It means Romney is very likely to well where there is some overlap between these two patterns: northeastern primaries.  It also means that Romney likely won't do well where there is no overlap: either in the South (except Virginia) and in the caucus states where he has no clear advantage.

The bottom line is that Romney, win or lose tomorrow, will suffer setbacks next week.

...and it has very little to with a the surge and decline theory proffered by Mr. Murray.



Recent Posts:
On the Nature of 2012 RNC Rules Changes


Romney Leading in Wyoming Precinct Caucus Votes

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Wyoming

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

On the Nature of 2012 RNC Rules Changes

FHQ is impatient. FHQ is cantankerous. FHQ just doesn't get it.

Well, we get it [the rules changes], but few others seemingly do. And I don't say that to brag -- I don't know that it is something to brag about.¹ -- but merely as a means of pointing out that some of the tomes that are being written on the subject are not accurately telling the story. That's frustrating because it can be misleading to folks that generally just want to gather information about the process. Look, I know the Republican National Committee rules governing the nomination/delegate selection process are difficult to grasp due to the myriad interpretations and implementations of the rules from state-to-state. And mind you, regular readers of FHQ will know that we have gone to great lengths to describe this process without getting too bogged down in the minutiae. But it is nigh impossible to not almost immediately jump into the weeds.

It gets wonky in a hurry.

As FHQ sees it, there is one main misconception going on regarding the rules right now [There are a bunch more, but I'll spare you.]: The overall rules changes are drawing out the process and this is mainly driven by the RNC switch to proportional allocation rules from winner-take-all rules. The first part of that statement is true. The overall rules changes have had the effect of lengthening the nomination process. The second part of the statement, though, is patently false. It is build on a logic that is nothing more than a house of cards. FHQ has raised the myth of proportionality, but I fear that that was perhaps the wrong way of framing it. The real problem in interpreting the nature of the Republican Party rules changes in 2012 is not the myth of proportionality (though it is a part of the problem), but rather the myth of winner-take-all rules. As I have been wont to say for the better part of six months now, too much of the writing on this subject treats the methods of allocation on the Republican side as binary; that a state has or has had either proportional or winner-take-all rules.

This is not the proper way of thinking about this process or the rules changes as a starting point. And because much of the logic behind the various rules changes discussions hinge on this notion -- that binary choice between methods -- they are all or mostly off base. Many of us are doing our taxes now. If you mess up one of the early calculations on the form, it affects the all of the remaining calculations on down the line. By starting off thinking of Republican delegate allocation in binary terms, many are affecting the ways in which they are thinking about the ultimate outcome: who wins the nomination.

There are many points of confusion. Much of it, however, lies in a few places. First of all, as much as there is a misconception that the new rules require the Democratic Party version of proportionality in states with contests before April 1, there is just as much of a problem on the backend; after April 1.² As that logic goes, if the RNC is requiring proportionality before April 1, then it is requiring winner-take-all rules after April 1. THIS IS FALSE. Let's focus on the post-April 1 part of the calendar to start. The simple truth of the matter is that states with contests after April 1 have the latitude to decide how they would like to allocate delegates. That is the same sort of leeway that all states have traditionally enjoyed on the Republican side. The RNC has left the matter up to the states/state parties in the past and for 2012 took the unprecedented step of laying some ground rules for how states before April 1 should allocated delegates. Very few post-April 1 states, as a result, made changes to their delegates selection rules relative to 2008. To the extent there were changes, it was actually in the opposite direction -- more proportional. In both Connecticut and New York, despite moving back from February 2008 contests to April 2012 contests, the rules were made slightly more proportional. It was far easier for post-April 1 states to leave well enough alone rather than make a change -- presumably to winner-take-all rules. Overall, then, there has been a drop in the number of strictly winner-take-all (as in the electoral college) states from 2008 (10 states) to 2012 (6 states).

Now, for the front half of the calendar, it should be noted that there have been some changes relative to 2008. But let FHQ state once again, for the record, that we have yet to see the impact of those changes.  Why? Well, none of the states that have held contests thus far have rules that differ from 2008 in any way. THE 2012 DELEGATE COUNT WOULD BE THE EXACT SAME AS IT IS NOW USING THE 2008 RULES. Well, that's not true. The Nevada Republican Party made its delegate allocation binding based upon the results of the precinct caucuses this year; something it did not do in 2008. Fewer delegates, then, would have been allocated so far in 2012 using 2008 rules.

What that means is that any changes that we have seen so far are based on two things: 1) the changes to the calendar and 2) the dynamics of this particular nomination race. It has nothing to do with the winner-take-all or proportional delegate allocation balance in 2012 as compared to 2008. None.

...not yet anyway.

Those rules changes -- as FHQ pointed out in December -- will not kick in until Super Tuesday. And as I also pointed out then, the most frequently utilized method of becoming "proportional" was for states to make their entire delegate apportionment or just their at-large delegates conditionally winner-take-all/proportional. If a candidate receives a majority of the vote, that candidate gets either all of the delegates or all of the at-large delegates. But if no candidate receives a majority of the vote, then the entire delegate apportionment or just the at-large delegates (depending on the state) are proportionally allocated. Even that may be overstating things as those states that have traditionally drawn a distinction between at-large delegates and congressional district delegates, have also usually allocated those congressional district delegates winner-take-all. Most of those states are still doing that in 2012 and winner-take-all by congressional district is something that comports with the new definition of proportional allocation on the Republican side.

To FHQ, then, it is kind of, I don't know, sad when opinion leaders/elected officials in the Republican Party get this wrong:

One prominent critic of the current system is New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R). “These RNC rules that turned to proportional awarding of delegates, this was the dumbest idea anybody ever had,” he said on Fox News on Thursday. “You're running against an incumbent president who will not have a primary, so your idea is make ours longer so we can beat each other up longer?”

...or...

“People do have concerns this has gone on longer than they would like and cost more money than they would like and created more thunder and lightning than they would like. That is a result of people going before the time allotted in the rules," said John Ryder, an RNC committeeman from Tennessee who came up with the idea to assign delegates proportionally. "And had the states complied with the rules the calendar would have been more compressed, orderly and less costly."

In Christie's case, the New Jersey governor has completely missed the point. The proportionality requirement may have an impact but it will be small when compared to the influence the changes to the calendar have had on the process in 2012 versus 2008. If anyone wants to point fingers at culprits for making the process longer, look to the calendar rules not the proportionality rules. Of course, the calendar dispersion, as John Ryder points out, is an issue that comes back to the Florida decision to jump into January which can easily be traced back to the fact that the RNC never adjusted its penalty regime to prevent such a move from happening in the first place.³ Again, the rules were never adjusted for 2012 relative to 2008 on that front. It all comes back to the calendar rules and perhaps more importantly, the penalties for violating the timing rules.

--

One thing that FHQ has faced is some criticism that we are understating the nature of the changes because of the impact the overall rules differences have on the process in 2012 -- especially campaign strategy. I am sympathetic to that criticism, but it ultimately comes back to the same issue. The overall rules -- driven by the calendar differences relative to 2008 -- are having an influence over the 2012 Republican nomination race. Again, though, it is the calendar that is driving the majority of this coupled with the dynamics of this particular nomination race. FHQ does not understate the overall rules. They matter. They always matter. However, the nature of one portion of those overall rules -- the proportionality requirement -- has been grossly overstated. There is no evidence that those rules have had any impact thus far because the states that have held contests have not changed any of their rule as compared to 2008. None. They may play a role in the delegate count but it will be a marginal impact on the overall race as compared to the sequence of adding delegates -- when states hold contests and how spread out they are on the 2012 primary calendar as compared to the 2008 calendar. Even if we begin to witness strong differences in the ultimate allocation of delegates from 2008 to 2012 on the state level, FHQ will and would argue that it has more to do with the competitiveness of the race -- the dynamics of the race -- in 2012 than it does the method delegate allocation, state-by-state.

What those rules changes -- both the calendar and delegate allocation rules -- do is give candidates an argument to take to donors and voters; that the rules allow the race to go on longer. But that logic -- particularly to the extent that it depends on the proportionality requirement -- is a house of cards. It is bound to collapse when and if one candidate begins to establish and increase a delegate lead.

--

I know it sounds self-serving folks, but calendar, calendar, calendar. All of this ultimately returns to the impact the changes to the calendar are having. That is what is driving the slow crawl to the nomination; not the new proportionality requirement. And RNC spokesman, Sean Spicer is absolutely right in that piece from The Hill: it is way too early to be overreacting to the rules changes. This is why parties don't make these changes during the heat of primary season. The RNC will revisit the changes in due time -- in the time leading up to and then during the convention in Tampa this summer.

...assuming they have abandoned thoughts of dealing with this outside of the convention as they did for the first time after 2008 in the form of the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee.

--
¹ Look, I admit it: I have no life.

² By Democratic proportional, I mean that if candidate A receives 50% of the vote in a nominating contest, then candidate A gets approximately 50% of the delegates from the state. Now, even the Democratic Party rules aren't arithmetically proportional because of rounding error or delegate movement from one step of a caucus to the next. The point is that there is a difference between what the Democratic and Republican Parties consider proportional.

³ Ryder is also guilty of assuming that the process "has gone on longer" when again, the reality is that the process would have gone on just as long this time as it has using the 2008 rules.

Recent Posts:
Romney Leading in Wyoming Precinct Caucus Votes

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Wyoming

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Washington State

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