2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: TENNESSEE

Updated 3.1.16

This is part eleven 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. 

TENNESSEE

Election type: primary
Date: March 1 
Number of delegates: 58 [28 at-large, 27 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: proportional (with supermajority (67%) winner-take-all trigger statewide and in congressional districts)
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 20% (both statewide and within the congressional districts)
2012: proportional primary

--

The Tennessee Republican Party method of delegate allocation echoes that of Oklahoma in many respects. In several others, it does not.

Changes since 2012
The biggest similarity between Tennessee and Oklahoma in terms of their respective delegate selection plans is that Volunteer state Republicans were similarly overly proportional given the 2012 RNC rules. Again, four years ago, states could achieve proportionality by simply proportionally allocating their at-large delegates. State parties were free to adopt plans for 2012 that would accomplish that while still allocating congressional district delegates in a winner-take-all fashion. Both Tennessee and Oklahoma awarded both at-large and congressional district delegates in a proportionate manner in 2012. With nearly the same sets of state-level rules carrying over from 2012 to 2016, both states were already in line with the new, tighter definition of proportionality the RNC has for 2016.

Thus, there are no real changes to those rules in either Oklahoma or Tennessee.


Thresholds
Tennessee Republicans have the highest allowable threshold under RNC rules to qualify for delegates statewide and at the congressional district level. In the vast majority of scenarios, to be awarded delegates, a candidate must win at least 20% of the vote. The only exception is if no one finishes over 20%.

If no candidate clears the 20% hurdle statewide, then the delegates are allocated in proportion to the candidates share of the statewide vote. In other words, if no one hits 20%, the Tennessee primary will basically operate as if there is no threshold.

If no candidate receives 20% of the vote in a congressional district, then the top 3 finishers each receive one delegate.

But as FHQ has stated before, March 1 -- the date on which the Tennessee presidential primary will be held -- the race will have wended its way through the carve-out states and some likely winnowing of the field of candidates. As the field decreases in size, the likelihood of no candidate getting to 20% of the vote in Tennessee (or anywhere else for that matter) decreases as well.

The rules change, however, if more than one candidate exceeds 20% of the vote. If multiple candidates are over 20% statewide, then the delegates would be allocated to those candidates in proportion to their share of the over 20% vote (the total share of just those over 20%). Should that happen at the congressional district level, the top finisher would be allocated two delegates and the district runner-up would take the remaining one.

Finally, there are a couple of winner-take-all situations. But it should be noted that it is a unit-specific winner-take-all, not a truly winner-take-all allocation.¹ If only one candidate crests over 20% either statewide or at the congressional district level, then that candidate would win all of the at-large and automatic delegates or congressional district delegates. As in Oklahoma and several other states, there is a backdoor to a modified winner-take-all allocation and with a much lower threshold.

There is also a supermajority threshold for winning all of the delegates as well. If there is more than one candidate over 20% -- again, either statewide or in a congressional district -- and the winner has more than two-thirds of the vote, then that candidate would also lay claim to all of the at-large and automatic delegates or congressional district delegates. Obviously, though, that is a much higher winner-take-all trigger (but lower than the similar threshold in Minnesota).

Needless to say, there are a number of contingencies packaged around these various thresholds. The supermajority trigger seems unlikely to be tripped if the field is large, but even as it -- the field of candidates -- shrinks, the other options, including the backdoor winner-take-all route all would be probable.


Delegate allocation (at-large and automatic delegates)
The statewide results in the March 1 Tennessee presidential preference primary will dictate how many of the 31 at-large and automatic delegates are allocated to which candidates. If multiple candidates are over the 20% threshold, those candidates will win a proportional share of those delegates. Based on the last poll conducted on the race in Tennessee (a November Vanderbilt poll), the statewide allocation would look something like this²:

• Trump (29%) -- 16.648 delegates
• Carson (25%) -- 14.352 delegates

• Cruz (14%) -- 0 delegates
• Rubio (12%) -- 0 delegates
• Bush (6%) -- 0 delegates
• Fiorina (2%) -- 0 delegates

First off, no one is over 67%, so there is no winner-take-all allocation. There is also more than one candidate over 20%, and that means that there is no backdoor winner-take-all allocation. Out of the 6 candidates, only two cleared the barrier and nearly evenly split the 31 at-large and automatic delegates. Trump would be allocated 17 delegates in this scenario and Carson would take 14.


Delegate allocation (congressional district delegates)
If we extend the hypothetical statewide numbers above to the congressional district level, it would trigger a top two allocation. If multiple candidates are over 20%, then the district winner -- hypothetically Trump here -- is allocated two delegates while the runner-up wins the other of the three congressional district delegates.

In both the statewide and congressional district allocation simulations, the results would have been no different if the threshold was lowered to, say, 15%. If it was lower still -- set at 10%, for instance -- then Cruz and Rubio would qualify for at-large delegates. Neither would win any congressional district delegates. The 1-1-1 allocation of the three congressional district delegates is only triggered if no one is above the 20% threshold.


Binding
Like Oklahoma, it is not entirely clear how long or how many ballots the bind lasts for Tennessee delegates. That has a lot to do with how the delegates are selected. The at-large delegates are selected in a couple of different ways. Half of them (14 delegates) are elected directly, listed with candidate affiliation on the primary ballot. The other 14 at-large delegates are selected by the Tennessee Republican Party Executive Committee and with input from the candidates' campaigns. In both cases, those delegates are loyal to their candidate. If that candidate has withdrawn, then those delegates presumably become unbound (or can opt out of attending the convention, in which case the Executive Committee fills the vacancy). The district delegates also appear on the ballot affiliated with (and bond to) the candidate to whom they have pledged. The same rationale applies to them as is the case with the elected at-large delegates.

Update: The three automatic delegates (see above) are bound on the first ballot at the convention, according to Brent Leatherwood, the Executive Director of the Tennessee Republican Party (citing RNC rules). Mr. Leatherwood later tweaked this, indicating a change in TNGOP rules meant the three automatic delegates as well as the rest of the delegation would be bound through two ballots.


--
State allocation rules are archived here.


--
¹ By unit specific FHQ means the winner-take-all allocation is confined to either just the at-large delegates based on the statewide results or just the congressional district delegates based on the results in the several congressional districts. A candidate would have to claim victory by a wide margin in Tennessee to win all 58 delegates.

² This poll is being used as an example of how delegates could be allocated and not as a forecast of the outcome in the Volunteer state presidential primary.

Recent Posts:
The Real Import of Rule 40 in 2016

Throwing Out Convention Votes?

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: OKLAHOMA

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

The Real Import of Rule 40 in 2016

One of the more controversial rules changes that came out of the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa was the change to Rule 40. This is basically the guide to getting a candidate's name placed in nomination; to be able to take part in the roll call vote. Over the years the thresholds have gradually increased. In 2012, a candidate had to control a plurality of a delegation from at least five states in order to be nominated. But that is not a bar that had been in place forever. And again, it was certainly a barrier that increased to that level over time.

In Tampa in 2012, however, the thought process was a bit different than it is today. There and then, the rules changes were designed with one thing in mind: protecting President Romney in a 2016 bid at re-nomination. As I told Matt Viser a couple of weeks ago, few were sitting around in the Rules Committee meeting the week before the convention or later in the convention room itself thinking about the possibility of 15 candidates vying for the 2016 nomination. The rules that Republican lawyer, Ben Ginsberg pushed through the Rules Committee and were ultimately adopted at the convention protected hypothetical future President Romney in several ways, but one of them was increasing the thresholds a candidate had to meet to have their name placed in nomination at the convention.

The changes?

Instead of the five states a candidate had to win in 2012, a candidate had to win at least eight in 2016. And adding to that, a candidate could no longer skirt by with just plurality control of the the delegation. The rules adopted in Tampa for 2016 upped that to a majority. The raising of the number of states is not really of much consequence. But bumping that control threshold up from just one more delegate than your next nearest competitor to having to control half of the delegates in a state's delegation plus one is a potentially significant change. The impact of the change is minimized when one considers a scenario in which a President Romney is facing off against just one likely fringe foe. Yet, when one removes a hypothetical sitting president and inserts more than 10 candidates with no frontrunner/a nominal frontrunner/an unproven outsider frontrunner, then that change to Rule 40 really seems to start to matter.

This is exactly the type of unintended consequences a party gets when it makes plans for a nomination and convention four years ahead of time. Things change and in ways that are difficult to plan for so far out.

--
Well, what do these changes portend for 2016? It is pretty ominous, right? And that is seemingly even more true given a wild and unpredictable field of candidates.

Not really.

As David Byler explains at Real Clear Politics, Rule 40 is basically a placeholder. It was among the series of convention rules that the Republican National Convention (via the adopted Rules Committee package) extended to the next cycle with some tweaks as it routinely does without much notice every four years. And by "convention rules", FHQ means the rules that are intended to govern the next convention (Rules 26-42). Those are distinct from what one might call "primary rules" -- Rules 13-25 -- in one important respect: The convention rules cannot be altered between conventions (see Rule 12), but the primary rules can.

That is why we have seen the cleaning up of Rule 16(a)(2) and the reinsertion of shall for may resurrecting the proportionality requirement in Rule 16(c)(2) among other changes.

But Rule 40 and the other convention rules have been off limits, static since Tampa. The routine is that these convention rules stay the same. One convention passes them on to another and that next convention adopts them as the procedures for governing itself with no problems. Ultimately though, the convention of delegates has the final say so in that instance. While it is customary for one convention to adopt the rules passed on to it by a previous convention it does not have to. Basically, a convention is charged with adopting the rules that will govern itself. The RNC has streamlined this process, as described above, but the convention can take it off that track if necessary.

That is where the discussion of Rule 40 stands now for the 2016 cycle. Again, with a wide open race and a robust field of candidates, the requirements to place a candidates name in nomination at the Cleveland convention appear rather steep. Can a candidate reach majority control of delegations from multiple states? Can multiple candidates get there? Will none get there?

We do not have answers to those questions at this point and may not until well after voting has begun in February. But all the while, the RNC -- and ultimately the convention itself -- could have some say in this matter.

...if it has to.

One of the shortcomings of Byler's otherwise excellent piece at RCP is that it does not consider the possibility that Rule 40 works as intended; that only one candidate gets majority control of delegations from at least eight states and receives a majority of the 2470+ delegates available in the Republican presidential nomination race.

And there is no defined point in time in which it will be clear that Rule 40 is working (or not). Until then, Rule 40 and the thresholds for nomination contained therein matter. It is a goal for which all the viable campaigns are shooting. There a reason Ted Cruz's campaign (among others) has been involved in Guam. It counts as one of those eight states. The campaigns, then, are operating as if the provisions of Rule 40 are a thing; that it matters. And indeed it does. Getting to majority control of eight states is still a goal for the campaigns until it is not.

So, if Rule 40 operates as envisioned, then there is no reason for the convention to change it. In the meantime, though, between now and the convention, the rule puts in place a marker that the campaigns must hit and are in fact striving for. That is different than saying Rule 40 "won't affect the primary outcome".

It won't affect the outcome if it ends up standing in the way of the Cleveland convention completing part of its task: nominating a presidential candidate. If Rule 40 does serve as an impediment to that task, then it will be altered. But until it is clear that Rule 40 is a problem -- that the primary process has produced an inconclusive result in part because of the requirements in the rule -- it matters.

--
That does leave us with a couple of important secondary questions.

First, does the RNC signaling that Rule 40 is a placeholder now -- in December 2015 -- change how the campaigns approach the process? We will not begin getting an answer to this question until votes start coming in and delegates are allocated. It is at that point that the campaigns will start attempting to frame what they have won and what that means. In other words, do the campaigns keep us updated on the progress they are making toward meeting the thresholds laid out in Rule 40 -- the process of being placed in nomination?

Second, if -- and it is still an IF, folks -- Rule 40 is determined to be problematic during the course of primary season (if an inconclusive result is seemingly almost assured), then how does the Convention Rules Committee alter it? Byler addresses at the end of his piece and FHQ disagrees with him. As I said above and as I told Ben Jacobs and Walter Shapiro via Twitter last Thursday when this whole brokered contested convention discussion broke open anew, the number of states required under Rule 40 is not the issue. The biggest, most problematic change was the raising of the control threshold from a simple plurality to a majority. The convention may attempt to game things some with the number of states, but reverting to the former plurality requirement is more likely to solve a whole lot of the potential problems with the Rule 40 requirements.

But first thing's first: Let's see if, in fact, Rule 40 is going to be a problem once votes are being cast.

Recent Posts:
Throwing Out Convention Votes?

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: OKLAHOMA

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: MINNESOTA

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

Throwing Out Convention Votes?

The genre can be a bit of a burr under the saddle to FHQ at times, but Philip Bump at least had a nice and pretty thorough brokered contested convention explainer up at The Fix over the weekend.¹ I'll resist the urge to dig in too deeply at this point. However, there was one glaring inaccuracy in the write up that should be corrected.

It involves the small blurb about the impact of Rule 16 at the convention. Here is Bump's interpretation:

Rule 16: If delegates vote for someone besides the candidate to whom they are bound, those votes are thrown out.

This is wrong. These votes -- those cast against the delegate bind -- are absolutely not thrown out. If one reads the rule in full it ends up sounding that way by the end of the paragraph. Yet, the key is at the very beginning.

Let's look at the text of Rule 16(a)(2):

The Secretary of the Convention shall faithfully announce and record each delegate’s vote in accordance with the delegate’s obligation under these rules, state law or state party rule. If any delegate bound by these rules, state party rule or state law to vote for a presidential candidate at the national convention demonstrates support under Rule 40 for any person other than the candidate to whom he or she is bound, such support shall not be recognized. Except as provided for by state law or state party rule, no presidential candidate shall have the power to remove a delegate.

[Emphasis added by FHQ]

Bump is picking up on that vote recognition part at the end. But not recognizing a delegate's vote is different than throwing out that vote. In fact, it is impossible to discard a vote that has already been "announce[d] and record[ed]" in "accordance with the delegate's obligation". The order of this is of the utmost importance here. It sets up a sequence: record the bind and ignore the violation of it.

That is at least part of the reason why the RNC amended the language of the rule as it existed coming out of Tampa at the spring RNC meeting in Los Angeles in April 2013 without really changing the intent of the rule itself. Here is the version of Rule 16(a)(2) that was adopted in Tampa and amended eight months later:

For any manner of binding or allocating delegates under these rules, if a delegate (i) casts a vote for a presidential candidate at the national convention inconsistent with the delegate’s obligation under state law or state party rule, (ii) nominates or demonstrates support under Rule No. 40 for a presidential candidate other than the one to whom the delegate is bound or allocated under state law or state party rule, or (iii) fails in some other way to carry out the delegate’s affirmative duty under state law or state party rule to cast a vote at the national convention for a particular presidential candidate, the delegate shall be deemed to have concurrently resigned as a delegate and the delegate’s improper vote or nomination shall be null and void. Thereafter the secretary of the convention shall record the delegate’s vote or nomination in accordance with the delegate’s obligation under state law or state party rule. This subsection does not apply to delegates who are bound to a candidate who has withdrawn his or her candidacy, suspended or terminated his or her campaign, or publicly released his or her delegates.

[Emphasis added by FHQ]

This is the kitchen sink version of the same rule discussed above; the current rule. But notice that even under this rule, the vote is not thrown out, the delegate is. Then the vote is counted as if the delegate had cast it properly and in accordance with the instruction of the binding. Note also that the actions of the rule are flipped. In the early version of the rule the secretary of the convention awaits some violation before correctly recording the vote. The altered, current version completely removes the ability and motivation of a delegate to vote in violation of the binding by reversing the order. But the changed rule to eliminate the resignation of a delegate.

But the bottom line here is that in neither case would the vote have been thrown out. That would make an already messy situation -- a contested convention -- even messier.


--
¹ It is not that FHQ does not like the convention discussion. It usually entails a headlong dive into the rules, and I am rarely averse to that. However, we have all been through this before. We are entering into brokered contested convention chatter season, but it ends up being a quadrennial exercise in putting the cart before the horse. There are delegate allocation rules that are going to matter a lot more in the near term than trying to calculate the conditional odds that they -- the rules -- are going produce an inconclusive outcome in June.

Recent Posts:
2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: OKLAHOMA

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: MINNESOTA

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: GEORGIA

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

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: OKLAHOMA

Updated 3.1.16

This is part ten 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. 

OKLAHOMA

Election type: primary
Date: March 1 
Number of delegates: 43 [25 at-large, 15 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: proportional (with majority (50%) winner-take-all trigger statewide and in congressional districts)
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15% (both statewide and within the congressional districts)
2012: proportional primary

--
Changes from 2012
The Oklahoma Republican Party made bigger changes to their method of delegate allocation from 2008-2012 than they did from 2012 until now. The state legislature in the Sooner state shifted back the presidential primary in the state by a month from February 2008 to March 2012. Squarely within the month-long -- all of March -- proportionality window for 2012, the reaction of the Republican Party in Oklahoma was to switch from winner-take-most (winner-take-all by congressional district) plan to an across-the-board proportional plan to comply with the new RNC rules four years ago.

But rather than proportionally allocating all of the delegates -- at-large and congressional district -- based on the statewide results, Oklahoma Republicans opted to award delegates in a proportionate manner based on the results statewide and in the several congressional districts. The at-large delegates were allocated and bound based on the statewide results and the congressional district delegates were awarded based on the results in each of the congressional districts.

That change ended up being more proportional than was necessary under the RNC rules in 2012. The only switch that was required to comply was the at-large delegate allocation. In 2012, a state could be considered compliant with the proportionality requirement if it proportionally allocated those at-large delegates. A state could continue to allocated congressional district delegates in a winner-take-all fashion (based on the congressional district results). Ohio made that incremental change, but states like Oklahoma and Georgia went the extra step and proportionalized the allocation of all of their delegates.

A total proportionalization for 2012 meant that states like Oklahoma and Georgia were ahead of the curve under the stricter definition of proportional the RNC has rolled out for the 2016 cycle; the one eliminating the winner-take-all allocation of congressional district delegates.

The historical rundown is intended to show that Oklahoma had no impetus to make any changes to its delegate allocation rules for 2016. And it has not really made any alterations.

So what does the process look like?


Thresholds
To win any delegates under the Oklahoma Republican Party delegate allocation rules, a candidate must pull in an at least 15% share of the vote in the March 1 presidential primary. That is true at both statewide and at the congressional district level. Should any candidate win a majority of the votes in the primary statewide or in a congressional district that candidate would be allocated all of the statewide, at-large delegates (25) or all of the congressional district delegates (3 in each district).

The usual caveats apply here. The more candidates who are alive by SEC primary day on March 1, the less likely it is that that majority winner-take-all trigger will be tripped. However, as the number of candidates drops, the likelihood of a majority winner either statewide or in a congressional district increases.

It should be noted also that the Oklahoma Republican Party delegate allocation rules do not prohibit the possibility of a backdoor winner-take-all allocation. That possibility is unit-specific and limited though. A candidate can be the only one to clear the 15% threshold either statewide or in a congressional district and claim all of the either at-large or congressional district delegates, respectively. It is not possible for a candidate to win all 43 delegates from Oklahoma unless that candidate is above the 50% threshold statewide and in each of the five congressional districts or unless that candidate is the only one above 15% statewide and in each of the five congressional districts. Both outcomes are possible but not probable. Call that a limited backdoor winner-take-all allocation or a backdoor winner-take-most plan.


Delegate allocation (at-large and automatic delegates)
This is a simulation of the allocation; not a projection. The numbers are less important than how the rules operate in this exercise.

The at-large and automatic delegates -- 28 delegates in total -- will be proportionally allocated to candidates with a vote share above the 15% mark. Based on the last poll conducted on the race in Oklahoma (the mid-November Sooner poll), the statewide allocation would look something like this¹:

• Trump (27%) -- 7.560 delegates
• Carson (18%) -- 5.040 delegates
• Cruz (18%) -- 5.040 delegates
• Rubio (16%) -- 4.48 delegates

• Huckabee (4%) -- 0 delegates
• Bush (2%) -- 0 delegates
• Fiorina (2%) -- 0 delegates
• Paul (2%) -- 0 delegates
• Kasich (1%) -- 0 delegates


• Uncommitted -- 6 delegates

The first observation is that, as is the case in other states with a minimum qualifying threshold, Oklahoma's rules would limit the number of candidates who are actually allocated delegates. If a top tier emerges (and/or is maintained), then there will be a class of have candidates and a class of have not candidates. Of course, it should be noted that the carve-out contests have winnowed some of those have not candidates from the race.

The other thing that stands out about the Oklahoma delegate allocation formula for at-large and automatic delegates is the calculation itself. Unlike most other states, the language in the Oklahoma Republican Party rules uses the total vote -- and not the qualifying vote -- as the denominator in the equation. This is similar to how New Hampshire allocated delegates. Such a plan tamps down on the number of delegates the qualifying candidates -- those over the 15% threshold -- receive, but it also leaves a cache of delegates in limbo. In New Hampshire, the rule has always been to allocated those leftovers to the statewide winner in the Granite state primary.

But such a contingency is not a part of the Oklahoma rules. In the simulated allocation above, six delegates would not be allocated.

...to anyone. They would remain uncommitted. This is similar to the state of affairs in the Louisiana rules. But here's the thing: there is a range of possibilities here. If three candidates -- say, Trump, Cruz and Rubio -- just barely clear the 15% threshold. They end up with around 45% of the total vote. That leaves 55% of the vote under the threshold. All three candidates would claim four delegates and the remaining 16 at-large/automatic delegates would be uncommitted.

If, however, those same three candidates all receive 30% of the vote -- no, that's not likely -- then they combine for 90% of the vote and leave only 10% unaccounted for. Collectively, Trump, Cruz and Rubio would receive 24 delegates and four would be uncommitted.

That is a big range, but the results are likely to be somewhere in between. However, that does mean that there will be a small group of uncommitted delegates coming out of the Oklahoma primary.


Delegate allocation (congressional district delegates)
If the above statewide numbers are extended to the congressional district level, there would be four candidates over the 15% threshold. However, there would only be three delegates to go around in a given district. Trump, Carson and Cruz would qualify for one delegate each and Rubio would be left out of the allocation.

That same sort of allocation -- one delegate each -- would also hold if three candidates cleared the 15% barrier. If only two candidates draw 15% or more of the vote in a congressional district, the district winner would win two delegates and the runner-up would be allocated the remaining delegate.   That is consistent with the baseline allocation of congressional district delegates in Alabama and Georgia.

And again, should only one candidate clear the 15% barrier (or if a candidate wins a majority of the vote) in a district, then that candidate would take all three delegates from that district.


Things left out/unclear
There are a number of matters left unclear in addition to the automatic delegate question above.

1. What are the rounding rules? There is little guidance in the Oklahoma rules here other than to "round to the nearest whole number". It appears as if there is no process for dealing with over- and under-allocated delegates. Yet, given the structure of the rules, it would seem as if most of this is taken care of in the uncommitted delegate procedure described above.
2. How long does the bind on delegates last? Again, this is something that is left unsaid in the Oklahoma Republican Party delegate allocation rules. 1st ballot? Two ballots? Infinitely. It is not clear. 
3. What if no one reaches 15%? Oklahoma Republicans do describe a number of scenarios for the allocation of delegates based on the numbers of candidates clearing the qualifying threshold. However, that list does not include contingencies for the case where no candidate clears the 15% threshold statewide or in a congressional district. This seems unlikely and would require something like a seven-way logjam, but again, this possibility is not covered. Given Oklahoma's position on the calendar -- after the carve-out states -- and the pretty clear top tier of candidates in polling, the chances of a "no one above 15%" scenario seems limited.

--
State allocation rules are archived here.


--
¹ This poll is being used as an example of how delegates could be allocated and not as a forecast of the outcome in the Sooner state presidential primary.

Recent Posts:
2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: MINNESOTA

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: GEORGIA

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: COLORADO

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

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: MINNESOTA

Updated 2.29.16

This is part nine 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. 

MINNESOTA

Election type: caucuses
Date: March 1 
Number of delegates: 38 [11 at-large, 24 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: proportional (with supermajority (85% statewide) winner-take-all trigger)
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 10% (both statewide and within the congressional districts)¹
2012: non-binding caucuses

--

In 2012, the Minnesota Republican Party exploited a loophole in the RNC delegate selection rules and held a non-binding caucus a month before non-carve-out states were supposed do so. Since the preference vote at those February precinct caucuses had no direct, rules-based bearing on the delegate allocation process -- the results did not bind delegates to candidates -- the party was able to skirt sanctions from the national party. Not only was the initial step in the caucus/convention process earlier than the RNC would have preferred, but because the delegates were unbound, it meant that there was ultimately a divergence between the preference vote winner (Rick Santorum) and the candidate who controlled the Minnesota delegates at the national convention in Tampa (Ron Paul).

The RNC made some rules changes in Tampa and at subsequent meetings in the time between then and late summer 2014. Many of those rules changes were intended to target the states just like Minnesota in 2012.² Not only will Minnesota Republicans caucus about a month later in 2016 than the party did in 2012, but the delegates will be allocated and bound to candidates based on the preference vote at the March 1 precinct caucuses.

That means no fantasy delegates from Minnesota in 2016. But it does mean digging into a new delegate allocation formula.


Thresholds
As the Minnesota caucuses are scheduled for March 1, the party's initial step in its delegate allocation process will fall within the RNC's proportionality window. MNGOP will separately allocate statewide, at-large delegates and the congressional district delegates in a proportionate manner based on the results either statewide or within each of the eight congressional districts. Candidates qualify for delegates in those respective units -- again, statewide or within the congressional districts -- if they receive 10% or more of the vote. That is a hard 10%. A candidate with 9.5% of the vote cannot round up to 10%, for example, and be awarded delegates.

The exception to this is if a candidate wins 85% or more of the vote across the precinct caucuses statewide. Under the rules of delegate allocation in Minnesota, a candidate meeting that threshold statewide would be awarded all 38 delegates. Even in a field less crowded than the 2016 group of Republican candidates that 85% barrier is a high bar to surpass. Unless, something wild happens, then no candidate is going to trigger that winner-take-all allocation. Again, the bar is higher in Minnesota than in those states in which a simple majority triggers the allocation of all at-large and/or congressional district delegates to one candidate.

On the other end of that threshold spectrum, however, is that 10% bar to qualify for delegates. In terms of what is allowed under RNC rules -- a qualifying threshold up to 20% -- the Minnesota bar is pretty low. That, in turn, reduces that likelihood that just one candidate clears that hurdle. Obviously, with a large field of candidates, that outcome is more likely, but as the field of candidates winnows over the course of the February contests in the four carve-out states, just one candidate surpassing 10% of the vote statewide or at the congressional district level decreases.

Yet, it should be noted that there is nothing in the Minnesota Republican Party delegate allocation rules prohibiting a winner-take-all allocation either statewide or at the congressional district level should only one candidate crest above 10%. That differs from, say, Arkansas in the allocation of statewide delegates and Alabama, for example, with respect to congressional district delegates. Still, those structural differences across those states would tend to balance out in terms of their effects (which is to say, it would only tend to have an impact at the margins).

Delegate allocation (at-large/automatic delegates)
Both at-large and automatic delegates -- 14 delegates in total -- will be proportionally allocated to candidates with a vote share above the 10% mark. Based on the last poll conducted on the race in Minnesota (PPP's July poll), the statewide allocation would look something like this³:

• Walker (19%) -- 4.22 delegates
• Trump (18%) -- 4.0 delegates
• Bush (15%) -- 3.33 delegates
• Carson (11%) -- 2.44 delegates

• Cruz (7%) -- 0 delegates
• Huckabee (6%) -- 0 delegates 
• Rubio (5%) -- 0 delegates 
• Paul (5%) -- 0 delegates 
• Christie (4%) -- 0 delegates
• Fiorina (3%) -- 0 delegates 
• Kasich (3%) -- 0 delegates
• Jindal (1%) -- 0 delegates 

This actually ends up nicely capturing how rounding would work under the Minnesota rules. First, the allocation is done in descending order according to how the candidates finish. Fractional delegates of .5 or greater would be rounded up. The combination of a sequential allocation and rounding is one of the potential hidden advantages in these rules across states.

In the above example, no one has a remainder greater than .5, so no one rounds up. That means Walker ends up with 4 delegates, Trump 4, Bush 3 and Carson 2. That is a total of 13 delegates, leaving one delegate out of the original 14 unallocated. In some states, that unallocated delegate is awarded to the top finisher. In still others, the candidate with the largest remainder is given that last delegate. Minnesota falls in latter category. Carson, with a remainder of .44, would gain that final delegate, pushing his total up to 3.

Carson gains in that instance, but if those in front of him had had larger remainders or fractional delegates above .5, Carson would have been at a disadvantage by virtue of being the last over the threshold (and thus last in the sequence to be allocated delegates). Those toward the end of the sequence have the potential of being squeezed out of delegates dependent upon how qualified candidates with higher vote shares statewide round.

Delegate allocation (congressional district delegates)
Allocating the congressional district delegates is easier or harder. If there are multiple candidates above the 10% threshold and they are clustered together, then the top three in the vote count within the district will be allocated one delegate each. If we extend the above statewide results to the congressional district level, Walker, Trump and Bush would be allocated one delegate and Carson, despite being over 10%, would be on the outside looking in. That is the easy way of thinking about this.

It gets more complicated when considering the possibility of one candidate receiving enough support in a congressional district so as to win two delegates. It should be noted that this is less likely too. To accomplish this, a candidate would have to win more than half of the vote among the candidates over 10% (as opposed to using the votes cast for all candidates as the denominator). That is something that would be conditioned by how many candidates break the 10% threshold. If only two candidates are above 10%, then it would only take the top finisher one more vote than the candidate in second place in the district to be allocated two delegates. More candidates above 10% pushes the margin necessary to be allocated two of the three delegates upward.

Binding
Delegates from Minnesota under these rules are bound to their candidates through the first ballot at the national convention. If a candidate with delegates from Minnesota withdraws from the race, then those delegates would attend the national convention unbound. Interestingly, should a withdrawn candidate return to the race, those delegates would return to that candidate. That return contingency is unique to Minnesota so far as FHQ can tell.



--
One fun side note is that congressional district delegates under these rules can be allocated based on the statewide results rather than congressional district results. This is a little like the idea behind the National Popular Vote plan, but more likely operates like a blanket proportional allocation of all delegates, regardless of distinction, based on the statewide vote. What's "fun" is that the rules do allow for some variation. There could be some districts that would tether the allocation of their delegates to the statewide result while others would allocate theirs based on the results within the congressional district.

But that -- a decision to allocate congressional district delegates based on the statewide preference vote results -- can only happen if the party Executive Committee on the congressional district level makes that decision before August 31 of the year prior to the presidential election. That option was meaningless for the 2016 cycle, though. The allocation rules, including this option, were not adopted until September 17, 2015, after that August 31 deadline.



--
State allocation rules are archived here.


--
¹ If no candidate reaches the 10% threshold either statewide or at the congressional district level, then the threshold is lowered by rule to 0%. In practice, though, to qualify for delegates a candidate would have to be closer to the top votegetter's vote share than zero. That is particularly clear at the congressional district level where only three delegates are available in each district. Statewide, if the winner is below 10%, then there would presumably be a great number of candidates around 9%. If Minnesota was the first contest on the calendar that would be one thing, but being positioned a month after Iowa kicks off the process means that the winners -- statewide and within the districts -- will be above the 10% barrier.

² To some extent Iowa was also similarly hit by the rules changes. As Iowa is a carve-out state, though, the Hawkeye state was only affected by the addition of the binding requirements the RNC put in place for the 2016 cycle.

³ This poll is being used as an example of how delegates could be allocated and not as a forecast of the outcome in the Land of 10,000 Lakes. Obviously, Scott Walker is unlikely to receive 19% of the vote at the Minnesota caucuses.

Recent Posts:
2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: GEORGIA

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: COLORADO

A Request: Don't Use the RCP Delegate Interactive Tool as a Mobile Brokered Convention Production Unit

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

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: GEORGIA

Updated 4.18.16

This is part eight 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. 

GEORGIA

Election type: primary
Date: March 1 
Number of delegates: 76 [31 at-large, 42 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: proportional (with winner-take-most trigger statewide and congressional district)
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 20% (to win statewide, at-large delegates)¹
2012: proportional primary

--

For the most part Georgia Republicans have retained the same method for allocating national convention delegates as the state party utilized in 2012. Unlike states such as Ohio, though, the Georgia interpretation of proportional in 2012 is still consistent with the changed definition the national party is using in 2016. But in 2012, the allocation of delegates in the Peach state was overly proportional.² In 2016, Georgia is still compliant with the RNC proportionality requirement with much the same rules.

At-large delegates
Georgia Republicans will proportionally allocate the 31 at-large delegates apportioned to the state by the RNC to candidates who clear the 20% threshold in the statewide vote in the presidential primary election. If no candidate receives 20% of the vote, the threshold is lowered to 15%. Should no candidate reach 15%, then that threshold is decreased to just 10% of the statewide vote.

It is worth noting that despite the varying thresholds, if only one candidate clears whatever barrier is established, then that candidate would be entitled to all 31 of the statewide, at-large delegates. If, for instance, Ted Cruz is the top votegetter statewide at 10.1% and Marco Rubio is the runner-up at 9.9%, then Cruz would win all 31 at-large delegates, even with such a narrow advantage. The fact that the Georgia threshold for a candidate to qualify for delegates is a bit of a moving target adds some intrigue to the process, but it does make it more difficult to game out. It is a potentially low mark to trigger a possible backdoor winner-take-all scenario for the at-large delegates.

One new aspect in Georgia for 2016 is that if a candidate wins 50% of the statewide vote, then that candidate wins all of the at-large delegates. If the field remains even somewhat crowded though, this seems more unlikely than a backdoor winner-take-all scenario.

Unlike the RNC summary, the Georgia rules specify that winning a majority statewide entitles a candidate to all at-large delegates, not all delegates in the state.³

***
UPDATE
"Rounding" of at-large delegates
The Georgia rules clearly state that there is no allocation of fractional delegates. But there is no defined method of rounding delegates. In lieu of rounding, then, what happens is a series of repeated proportional allocations of remainders. Let's look at this using the 2016 results that are now available to us.

The first thing is the allocation equation. Georgia uses a candidate's share of the statewide vote as the numerator and the total statewide vote -- not the qualifying vote of just those above the threshold -- as the denominator. Given Tuesday's results, that looks something like this:

Round 1
[34 at-large delegates]
(Allocated delegates in parentheses)

Trump: 34 X .388 = 13.196 delegates (13)
Rubio: 34 X .244 = 8.312 delegates (8)
Cruz: 34 X .236 = 8.024 delegates (8)

That allocates 29 of the 34 at-large delegates, leaving five leftover. Those five are then allocated using the same equation from above.

Round 2
[5 leftover at-large delegates]
(Allocated delegates in parentheses)

Trump: 5 X .388 =  delegates (2)
Rubio: 5 X .244 =  delegates (1)
Cruz: 5 X .236 =  delegates (1)

That leaves just two delegates to be split among three qualifying candidates. All that is left are fractional delegates as a result. Since the remaining delegates cannot be proportionally allocated without ending in fractional delegates, the remaining two delegates go to the statewide winner.

Final allocation
Trump: 13 + 2 + 1 = 16 delegates
Rubio: 8 + 1 = 9 delegates
Cruz: 8 + 1 = 9 delegates

According to the Georgia Republican Party general counsel's office, the three automatic delegates are included in the at-large allocation and are the first three delegates to fill in the first three allocated slots the statewide winner has been awarded.

***


Congressional district delegates
The bulk of the Georgia delegation -- as is the case the larger a state's population gets -- will be allocated at the congressional district level. Each of the 14 congressional districts in the Peach state is apportioned three delegates by the RNC. The state party has opted again in 2016 to allocate those three delegates in a Top Two manner. The district winner is allocated two delegates while each district runner-up is awarded the remaining one delegate. There is no threshold to qualify. Candidates simply have to get into the top two in the district vote count.

This roughly simulates the proportional allocation of three delegates, but does present the potential to hurt a third place finisher who is tightly clustered with the top two.  That third place candidate would likely be deprived of a delegate in that scenario; a delegate that goes to the winner of the district count. On the other hand, the top two method does eliminate the possibility of a candidate winning all the delegates in a district by clearing a low threshold (as is the case with at-large delegates).

Again, there is no threshold to qualify for congressional district delegates, but there is a threshold to qualify for all three of a district's delegates. Should a candidate win a majority of the vote in a district, then that candidate would be allocated all three delegates. Newt Gingrich was able to exercise this option in a handful of districts in his 2012 win in the Georgia primary.

The method is the same at the congressional district level in Georgia as it was in 2012.

Automatic delegates
The three party delegates are functionally at-large delegates in the Georgia delegate allocation plan. The party chairperson, the national committeeman and the national committeewoman are all allocated and bound to the statewide winner of the Georgia primary. As was the case with the congressional district delegates, the automatic delegates are allocated and bound in the same manner in which they were during the 2012 cycle.

--
All Georgia delegates are bound through the first ballot of the national convention. Additionally, there is no explicit guidance in the bylaws concerning the release of delegates upon the suspension of a presidential campaign or candidate withdrawal from race. Those delegates would theoretically continue to be bound to the candidates throughout, assuming the contest is unresolved throughout. If it is not competitive, the fact that the Georgia delegation voted unanimously for Romney at the convention in Tampa in 2012 speaks to the ability of delegates to be released from those bindings.



--
State allocation rules are archived here.


--
¹ If no candidate reaches the 20% threshold, the barrier is dropped to 15%. If no candidate reaches the 15% mark, the threshold is lowered to 10%.

² Though the Ohio presidential primary is situated outside of the proportionality window on March 15 and is truly winner-take-all for 2016, Buckeye state Republicans used a modified winner-take-all by congressional district method in 2012. The statewide delegates were allocated proportionally, but the congressional district delegates were allocated in a winner-take-all fashion to the winner of each congressional district. That qualified as proportional in 2012, but does not in 2016. Georgia was ahead of the curve in 2012 and thus did not have to make many changes to its rules for 2016.

³ Now, the Rule 16F filing the Georgia Republican Party made with the RNC made indicate a totally winner-take-all scenario, but that is not something that is described in the state party rules.

Recent Posts:
2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: COLORADO

A Request: Don't Use the RCP Delegate Interactive Tool as a Mobile Brokered Convention Production Unit

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: ARKANSAS

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

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: COLORADO

This is part seven 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. 

COLORADO

Election type: caucus/convention
Date: March 1 
Number of delegates: 37 [13 at-large, 21 congressional district, 3 automatic (unbound)]
Allocation method: determined by state and/or congressional district convention(s) or left unbound
Threshold to qualify for delegates: n/a
2012: non-binding caucuses

--

FHQ often says that sequence matters.

It does. But we typically talk about sequence in meta-terms: how each state and their respective primaries and caucuses collectively line up on the presidential primary calendar.

Sequence, however, also matters in the delegate allocation or selection process within states. That is definitely true with regard to the unconventional method of delegate allocation/selection the Colorado Republican Party has opted to use during the 2016 presidential nomination cycle.

As has previously been discussed in this space, Colorado Republicans have decided to skip the presidential preference vote at its March 1 precinct caucuses. Now, that decision could be chalked up to a desire to skirt the new-for-2016 national party delegate binding requirements, a misunderstanding of the national party rules, or division within the state party organization. In reality, it is a little bit of all three. Practically though, the "how Colorado came to this point" question is less important than the "what effect the decision will have" one.

First, it is likely to turn the March 1 precinct caucuses into a non-event.¹ With no preference vote, there is no real or easy way to gauge the winner of the caucuses. Since there is no presidential preference poll conducted at the precinct caucuses their is nothing on which to base any subsequent delegate allocation. And even the back up option -- counting the number of delegates that advance to the county assemblies aligned with particular candidates -- is compromised to some degree. Typically in caucuses, those who attend, meet and select folks from among their ranks at one step to move on to the next step in the process. That process continues to the congressional district level and/or the state convention level where national convention delegates are chosen from among those who are left from the whittled down group of original precinct caucusgoers.

That may yet be the case in Colorado, but it will be a bit atypical and messy getting there.

Candidates for delegate must file an intent to run form with the Colorado Republican Party chair no later than 13 days prior to the convention at which they would be elected (Rule XIII.A.5.a). For statewide, at-large delegates, that would mean 13 days before the April 9 state convention, and for congressional district delegates, 13 days before the congressional district conventions that meet between March 29 and April 9 (a filing deadline range from March 16-25).

To be eligible to run, a delegate candidate must:

• have been eligible to participate in the precinct caucuses
• have been a registered Republican in the state/district at the time of the precinct caucuses and remain so through the relevant convention (depending on which delegate position is sought, at-large or congressional district)
• have been a delegate, alternate or qualified voting member at the county assemblies
• be a delegate to the district or state convention (depending on which delegate position is sought, at-large or congressional district)

It is that third one that is perhaps most important. To take part in the county assemblies, one has to have been elected/selected at the precinct caucuses to move on to the next step in the process. That means that the national convention delegates will emerge from the participants in the March 1 precinct caucuses; the ones without a preference vote. And while there is no preference vote at the precinct caucuses, the intent to run form delegate candidates must file with the party chair after that point on the calendar (after March 1) gives those delegate candidates the option of aligning with/pledging to a presidential candidate.

That pledge is much more important than is being discussed.

Colorado has been talked about as a state that will send an unbound delegation to the national convention. That would only be the case if all the delegate candidates who file intent to run forms opted to remain unaffiliated with any presidential campaign. If those delegate candidates pledge to a presidential candidate and are ultimately elected to one of the 34 delegate slots (not counting the party/automatic delegates), then they are functionally locked in with that candidate if that candidate is still in the race for the Republican nomination.

They would be bound to those candidates at the national convention because the Colorado Republican Party bylaws instruct the party chair to cast the delegation's votes at the national convention "in accordance with the pledge of support made by each National Delegate on their notice of intent to run". Anywhere from 0 to 34 delegates could end up bound from the Colorado delegation to the Republican National Convention.

That is a real wildcard in the delegate count in Colorado and nationally.

--
But let's return to sequence for a moment.

The precinct caucuses are on March 1. Intent to run forms are due no later than mid-to-late March, following at the very least the other primaries and caucuses held on or before March 15. The first puts a premium on organizing -- turning out as many supporters as possible for the precinct caucuses and then getting those supporters through to the county assemblies. It is only that group of county assembly participants who are eligible to be national convention delegates. Showing strength there is everything in the delegate allocation process in Colorado in 2016.

But we will not have an answer to that right away necessarily; not unless those that make it through to the county assemblies immediately submit intent to run delegate candidate forms (and the Colorado Republican Party actually reports those results). Regardless of the reporting from the state party, if a campaign is able to corner the market and move through to the next step a bunch of its supporters, that candidate will have a decided advantage in the delegate allocation process. They would dominate the pool of potential candidates and maximize the number of delegates the campaign eventually wins.

Rather than being a state with no preference vote that no one pays attention to, Colorado becomes a real delegate prize for the campaigns who are able to organize there. Those that gain an organizational advantage -- and that is much more likely in a low turnout election without the incentive of a presidential preference vote -- have a real opportunity to get something out of the Centennial state. It will not necessarily entail candidates coming into the state over the course March and into April (because forcing delegate candidates through to the county assembly level is the true mark of winning there), but it may make the media outlets pay continued attention to Colorado as the process there resolves itself. And since there is no preference vote guiding the delegate allocation process from step to step, a candidate could dominate in Colorado and come out on April 9 with a significant majority of delegates.

This rules set up means Colorado could go a lot of ways, but like some of the other states with, say, vote thresholds to qualify for delegates, the method in Colorado is likely to favor a limited number of candidates.

--
Colorado delegates will be bound to the candidates to whom they have pledged on the first ballot at the national convention. The exceptions are 1) if the delegate candidate filed as uncommitted and 2) if a presidential candidate has withdrawn from the race (thus releasing any delegates). In both cases, those delegates would be free to choose from among the candidates still in the race. Left unsaid is how those votes are cast at the convention. If all delegates end up bound, the chairperson of the party casts the votes of the delegation according to the pledges in the intent to run forms. However, in the event that there is a faction of uncommitted and/or released delegates, then it is the delegates themselves who cast their own ballots.


--
State allocation rules are archived here.


--
¹ In the conventional sense, candidates will not necessarily come to Colorado to drive up support for a March 1 vote that will not happen. That is doubly true in light of the fact that Colorado shares its precinct caucuses date with primaries and caucuses in 13 other states. Functionally though, with delegates potentially on the line, Colorado is certainly not a non-event.

Recent Posts:
A Request: Don't Use the RCP Delegate Interactive Tool as a Mobile Brokered Convention Production Unit

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: ARKANSAS

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: ALASKA

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

A Request: Don't Use the RCP Delegate Interactive Tool as a Mobile Brokered Convention Production Unit

Over the last couple of days FHQ has been asked our thoughts on the Delegate Allocation Interactive Tool at Real Clear Politics.

It's great!

Sean Trende and David Byler have done yeoman's work in not only putting this thing together, but in putting it out there for public consumption. Having put a couple of delegate allocation models together during primary season in 2012, I can tell you that it is, at best, an imperfect science.¹ Juggling all of the various factors embedded in the patchwork of delegate allocation rules across the entire country is no easy task. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.

However, it does mean that one has to make assumptions about certain factors of the system to model it properly/accurately (see for instance the variation in delegate rounding). And while those assumptions can potentially be fodder for criticism, FHQ would rather take the tool for what it is: an instrument to help us better understand the complexities of the rules, how they are differently implemented across states, and maybe what that means for the 2016 race.

[NOTE: And FHQ really cannot stress enough how open Sean and David are to any and all comments, feedback, perspectives and alternate approaches/assumptions about this thing. This is a first pass. And having spoken with them while they began putting this together, they are intent on improving it into and through primary season.]

--
But it is that maybe above that is of some overall concern to FHQ. The reactions to this thing have been positive from what I have seen, but I do wonder how people will approach this thing. My fear is that it ends up overemphasizing or artificially inflating the odds (in terms of perceptions on the individual level) of the various contested convention scenarios out there (see for instance this). That overemphasis tends to be on the outcome rather than the input. By input I mean plugging in poll numbers that traditionally have not been predictive at this stage of past races and more importantly the role of winnowing in the process. And that latter option is available, but I wonder how often users will account for those effects. It is relatively easy to produce a contested convention outcome if you carry 14 candidates through the process or even five. But is that the likely path? FHQ does not know to be honest. However, past results point toward a sequential process -- like the one that is still in place for 2016 -- gradually winnowing the field like kids in Willy Wonka's chocolate factory.

This is FHQ's way of saying that this delegate allocation interactive tool is a very powerful one and its utility will be derived from how it is used. So rather than be critical, let's put the gadget to use in testing a hypothesis.

FHQ likes to talk about rules. Perhaps you have noticed. And there have been some changes to the delegate allocation rules employed by the Republican National Committee between 2012 and 2016. The gadget give us the chance to -- in a very rough way -- estimate the impact of those rules changes. The premise is simple: Take the 2012 primary results, plug them into the tool and see how the path/outcome differs.

There are a lot of questions that come out of this. Does the smaller proportionality window slow down Romney's march to the nomination? Does the tighter definition of proportionality come to the aid of his opponents? Do the winner-take-all states clustered on March 15-22 push Romney over the top? Are the SEC primary states winnowers and the northeastern states coalesced in late April the deciders as Trende and Byler hypothesize?

Before FHQ digs into that, a few notes. First, this, too, is an imperfect approach. The rules are different and so is the sequence of contests. That means that late 2012 states that are early in 2016 have lopsided results that favor Romney (see Arkansas, Kentucky, Texas and Utah). Similarly there are early 2012 states that are later in 2016 where results are likely imprecisely competitive during a likely less competitive part of the calendar (see Washington). There are also some of the warts in the tool's code in this early stage. For instance, the gadget allocates delegates from states like Colorado, North Dakota and Wyoming, where it will remain unknown for quite a while -- perhaps up to the convention -- just how many delegates are actually bound to what candidates (in the eyes of the RNC).

Still, there is some utility to be gained in gaming this out despite that.

Here's how this ends up looking:

Please note that Trump = Romney, Carson = Santorum, Rubio = Gingrich, Cruz = Ron Paul, Rand Paul = Perry and Bush = Hunstman.

So Romney still wins. The former Republican nominee would have received 1527 delegates given the caveats detailed above, but also without counting any of the 135 RNC/automatic delegates that are mostly left unbound through the RCP gadget. There are actually 168 of those automatic delegates. Approximately 40% of those delegates are actually bound based on primary or caucus results. The remainder would be unbound. But even without some of those bound automatic delegates, Romney still wins comfortably. His nearest competitor -- Santorum -- ends up with just a quarter of Romney's delegate total. Furthermore, Romney's total competition only amasses a little less than half of his delegate total together.

Well, sure, if a candidate wins 42 out of 56 contests, that candidate is probably going to win the nomination. There's no big surprise there.

The map is nice, but how does this look if we examine the pace with which the candidates accrue delegates over the course of primary season? As it was in 2012, Romney used a win in winner-take-all Florida to establish a lead in the delegate count that widened to roughly a 3:1 ratio after Super Tuesday on March 6, was more firmly established toward the end of March when 50% of the delegates had been allocated, and was solidified by the northeastern primaries in late April.

By the time 75% of the delegates had been allocated -- the week prior to the Texas primary -- Romney all but had the nomination clinched. Texas on May 29 put him over the top. The southern winnowers/northern deciders hypothesis Trende and Byler proffer is basically the 50-75 rule, but perhaps a less precise one, FHQ would argue. But that was basically what the system produced in 2012 under the 2012 rules.

How does this change when the 2016 rules (and calendar) are inserted and combined with the 2012 primary results?

The quick answer is not much. The longer version is it changes but only in a very subtle fashion. With no winner-take-all Florida, Romney would not have broken away from the pack in the same way. Sure, he had the advantage, pulling away from everyone else individually after what would have been the SEC primary. But if we shift our focus to the contested convention scenario, all of Romney competition combined were still neck and neck with Romney after the hypothetical March 1 contests.

That would change after the proportionality window closes and winner-take-all contests are introduced on March 15. Notice how Romney -- already apart from all the other candidates -- separates from even the combined "Anti-Romney" line (in purple). The former Republican nominee's lead only increases from there (after the 50% allocation point), jumping after the northeastern series of contests on April 19-26, but not clinching the nomination until the Oregon primary on May 17. That is about two weeks ahead of where Romney clinched in 2012 under the 2012 rules. Additionally, he does not arrive at that threshold until after the 75% allocation point that is crossed in the northeastern states.

Again, there are caveats to this, but the change in rules from 2012 to 2016 do not bring significant changes to either the outcome of the 2012 Republican nomination race or how the process arrived at its conclusion. What we can say is that the rules changes did not result in a contested convention.

But different inputs in 2016 may alter things. Still, use those winnowing buttons at RCP, folks.

--
¹ You can find more details on those models here and here (WSJ).

Recent Posts:
2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: ARKANSAS

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: ALASKA

The Extent of Jeb Bush's Alabama "Problem"

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