Senator Steve Gallardo (D-13th) two weeks ago introduced legislation in the Arizona state Senate to repeal in its entirety the section of the Grand Canyon state's election code dealing the presidential preference election. SB 1429 would strike Title 16, article 4 from the existing revised statutes.
And no, this would in no way affect the presidential primary coming up in Arizona at the end of the month. Even if the Democratic-sponsored legislation was able to make it through both of the Republican-controlled chambers in the Arizona state legislation, Governor Jan Brewer (R) would likely veto the legislation for much the same reason Missouri Governor Jay Nixon (D) vetoed legislation in the Show Me state over the summer to change the primary date there. The resulting change to the election code would have removed some gubernatorial power. In Missouri's case, the veto was based on the mostly unrelated (to the presidential primary) power of the governor to make appointments to fill vacant or vacated statewide offices. For Brewer and other subsequent Arizona governors, a repeal of the presidential preference election would strip governors of the ability to set the date of the primary.
More to the point, the legislation would not take effect until December 31, 2012 if it passed the legislature and was signed into law. The February 28 primary is safe.
Now, as FHQ mentioned last month, this is something that the Arizona Democratic Party considered last year. There was a plan in place for the party to shift from using the primary as a means of allocating delegates -- no matter what date it fell on -- to a caucus as early as May 2011. Part of the consideration was an effort -- which included the possibility of a similar repeal bill -- to put Republicans in the state legislature on the defensive over the $5 million state expenditure on the election. That part of the considerations went nowhere at the time, but has been resurrected with little chance of advancing in 2012.
Recent Posts:
No Conspiracy in Maine
Race to 1144: Maine Caucuses
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
No Conspiracy in Maine
UPDATE (2/17/12): Please see our follow up post on Maine.
There was quite a bit of ex post facto finger pointing going on in the Twitterverse -- FHQ's tiny circle of it anyway -- last night after the Maine Republican caucuses results were released by the state party. There was a lot of handwringing over the -- according to Google Elections -- nearly 17% of precincts that were not reporting results last night. Now, the Maine Republican Party advised those localities holding caucus meetings to hold them between February 4-11. But as FHQ has pointed out, several areas caucused early and others will caucus on either February 18 or March 3. However, only those caucuses that were conducted on or before February 11 were -- and will be -- counted in the final straw poll count. Well, in a close election -- one decided by just 194 votes1 -- having votes not counted in the straw poll from anywhere is a problem.
...on its face anyway.
But that leaves two unanswered questions:
1) Is not counting those caucuses in the final non-binding straw poll really a problem?
2) If so, how big of a problem is it?
Now, as is our custom, FHQ will avoid the normative question of whether caucus votes totals being excluded from the total straw poll vote should be viewed as a problem. That is a question that the Maine Republican Party is best positioned to answer. But the answer is pretty obvious as to why the totals are not being counted. [The problem is that it has not been explained all that adequately by the Maine Republican Party.]
How obvious? For that, let's glance back at the vote totals from the 2008 Maine Republican caucuses. [Here are the relevant localities isolated from the full dataset.] First of all, there is an equivalence issue here as the Maine Republican Party in 2008 reported total towns reporting and not the precincts reporting that Google, the AP and others are using in 2012. From the party's perspective, 95.95% (332 of 346) of all towns reported results in 2008. That denominator -- 346 towns -- is based on the number of towns that had announced caucuses.2 FHQ does not know how much of an issue that is in the grand scheme of things in this case, but it is worth noting.
The towns yet to hold caucuses are in three counties -- Hancock, Kennebec and Washington. With the exception of Washington County -- where snowstorms postponed until February 18 caucuses that were originally scheduled for February 11 -- the sites within Hancock and Kennebec were previously scheduled outside of and after the window designated by the state party for holding caucuses. In other words, if there is a gripe about the certification of these results without certain areas, then the complaint about Washington County should be the loudest.
Still, combined, caucuses in those same areas -- if they had announced caucuses in 2008 -- only accounted for 148 total votes (out of 5431 votes statewide) four years ago.3 That's 2.7% of the total vote in 2008. More importantly, 113 of those 148 votes were in Washington County. Both totals are less than the margin by which Romney edge Paul last night in the straw poll.
Of course, as the Paul campaign pointed out last night, the straw poll is less important to them than the delegate count. Whether Paul is/was able to cobble together enough votes in the remaining precinct caucuses to pull ahead of Romney is not as important -- to the Paul campaign -- as is gobbling up delegate slots to the district/state conventions from not only those straw poll-excluded areas but statewide.
But back to the, uh, main questions: Were the Maine caucuses rigged as some are claiming? No. First of all, the Maine Republican Party did not go out of its way to single out these areas that will hold caucuses over the next two weeks to go later than everywhere else. The localities voluntarily opted for a time outside of that window, knowing that the state party planned to release straw poll numbers on February 11. Secondly, even if it was rigged, the state party could not have picked a collection of areas less equipped to swing the election. Is it a problem that those areas will go later than the rest of the state? FHQ will leave that question to someone else. The bottom line is that Ron Paul could have won all the votes in those areas and still come up short in the straw poll. Now, having said that, the Paul campaign could certainly focus on dominating those caucuses over the next two weeks and gathering all the available district/state convention delegate slots.
--
1 Eyeballing it, that looks like a small number, but the reality is that that 194 vote margin was enough to provide Mitt Romney with a fairly comfortable 3.5% victory in an election with 5585 votes cast. That is a level that would not trigger an automatic recount in a general election.
2 One additional point of clarification needed here from the Maine Republican Party is whether towns with "announced" caucuses were states that held them on or before the February 1-3 window in which caucuses were held in 2008. If they were announced but perhaps after February 3, were they "announced" in the eyes of the party in the linked tabulation above? FHQ doesn't know. Whether there were any localities with caucuses after February 3 is also unknown.
3 Adjusting that 148 vote total from 2008 for the modest increase in turnout from 2008 to 2012 would only increase the total number of votes in these areas to 152 in 2012. Admittedly, that's a crude estimate, but it provides a decent baseline for comparison.
Recent Posts:
Race to 1144: Maine Caucuses
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
There was quite a bit of ex post facto finger pointing going on in the Twitterverse -- FHQ's tiny circle of it anyway -- last night after the Maine Republican caucuses results were released by the state party. There was a lot of handwringing over the -- according to Google Elections -- nearly 17% of precincts that were not reporting results last night. Now, the Maine Republican Party advised those localities holding caucus meetings to hold them between February 4-11. But as FHQ has pointed out, several areas caucused early and others will caucus on either February 18 or March 3. However, only those caucuses that were conducted on or before February 11 were -- and will be -- counted in the final straw poll count. Well, in a close election -- one decided by just 194 votes1 -- having votes not counted in the straw poll from anywhere is a problem.
...on its face anyway.
But that leaves two unanswered questions:
1) Is not counting those caucuses in the final non-binding straw poll really a problem?
2) If so, how big of a problem is it?
Now, as is our custom, FHQ will avoid the normative question of whether caucus votes totals being excluded from the total straw poll vote should be viewed as a problem. That is a question that the Maine Republican Party is best positioned to answer. But the answer is pretty obvious as to why the totals are not being counted. [The problem is that it has not been explained all that adequately by the Maine Republican Party.]
How obvious? For that, let's glance back at the vote totals from the 2008 Maine Republican caucuses. [Here are the relevant localities isolated from the full dataset.] First of all, there is an equivalence issue here as the Maine Republican Party in 2008 reported total towns reporting and not the precincts reporting that Google, the AP and others are using in 2012. From the party's perspective, 95.95% (332 of 346) of all towns reported results in 2008. That denominator -- 346 towns -- is based on the number of towns that had announced caucuses.2 FHQ does not know how much of an issue that is in the grand scheme of things in this case, but it is worth noting.
The towns yet to hold caucuses are in three counties -- Hancock, Kennebec and Washington. With the exception of Washington County -- where snowstorms postponed until February 18 caucuses that were originally scheduled for February 11 -- the sites within Hancock and Kennebec were previously scheduled outside of and after the window designated by the state party for holding caucuses. In other words, if there is a gripe about the certification of these results without certain areas, then the complaint about Washington County should be the loudest.
Still, combined, caucuses in those same areas -- if they had announced caucuses in 2008 -- only accounted for 148 total votes (out of 5431 votes statewide) four years ago.3 That's 2.7% of the total vote in 2008. More importantly, 113 of those 148 votes were in Washington County. Both totals are less than the margin by which Romney edge Paul last night in the straw poll.
Of course, as the Paul campaign pointed out last night, the straw poll is less important to them than the delegate count. Whether Paul is/was able to cobble together enough votes in the remaining precinct caucuses to pull ahead of Romney is not as important -- to the Paul campaign -- as is gobbling up delegate slots to the district/state conventions from not only those straw poll-excluded areas but statewide.
But back to the, uh, main questions: Were the Maine caucuses rigged as some are claiming? No. First of all, the Maine Republican Party did not go out of its way to single out these areas that will hold caucuses over the next two weeks to go later than everywhere else. The localities voluntarily opted for a time outside of that window, knowing that the state party planned to release straw poll numbers on February 11. Secondly, even if it was rigged, the state party could not have picked a collection of areas less equipped to swing the election. Is it a problem that those areas will go later than the rest of the state? FHQ will leave that question to someone else. The bottom line is that Ron Paul could have won all the votes in those areas and still come up short in the straw poll. Now, having said that, the Paul campaign could certainly focus on dominating those caucuses over the next two weeks and gathering all the available district/state convention delegate slots.
--
1 Eyeballing it, that looks like a small number, but the reality is that that 194 vote margin was enough to provide Mitt Romney with a fairly comfortable 3.5% victory in an election with 5585 votes cast. That is a level that would not trigger an automatic recount in a general election.
2 One additional point of clarification needed here from the Maine Republican Party is whether towns with "announced" caucuses were states that held them on or before the February 1-3 window in which caucuses were held in 2008. If they were announced but perhaps after February 3, were they "announced" in the eyes of the party in the linked tabulation above? FHQ doesn't know. Whether there were any localities with caucuses after February 3 is also unknown.
3 Adjusting that 148 vote total from 2008 for the modest increase in turnout from 2008 to 2012 would only increase the total number of votes in these areas to 152 in 2012. Admittedly, that's a crude estimate, but it provides a decent baseline for comparison.
Recent Posts:
Race to 1144: Maine Caucuses
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Race to 1144: Maine Caucuses
Contest Delegates (via contest results and rules, and RNC)
Automatic Delegates (Democratic Convention Watch)
Delegate breakdown (post-Maine caucuses):
Romney: 91 delegates (New Hampshire: 7, South Carolina: 2, Florida: 50, Nevada: 14, Automatic: 18)
Gingrich: 32 delegates (South Carolina: 23, Nevada: 6, Automatic: 3)
Paul: 8 delegates (New Hampshire: 3, Nevada: 5)
Santorum: 4 delegates (Nevada: 3, Automatic: 1)
Unbound: 126 delegates (Iowa: 25, Colorado: 33, Minnesota: 37, Maine: 21 Automatic: 8, Huntsman: 2)
--
As Maine goes, so goes the...
...well, so has gone New Hampshire, Florida and Nevada thus far anyway. The Maine Republican Party revealed Saturday night that Mitt Romney had won its caucuses. Now, it should be noted that there are several caucus meetings that have yet to occur and will be held between now and March 3, but as Maine Republican Party Executive Director Mike Quatrano informed FHQ a couple of weeks ago, only the caucuses held on or before February 11 would be included in the straw poll results. It was the party's opinion that the 502 (of 600) precincts reporting up to February 11 would be a reflection of the Pine Tree state's Republican caucusgoers as a whole.
Whether it accomplishes that goal or not, Romney emerges with a win that coupled with a straw poll win at CPAC helps to change the narrative around the race following the Santorum sweep of February 7 contests. The other side of this is that Ron Paul, a close runner-up, has made a push to collect as many county convention delegate slots as possible. To this point, that is the one unanswered question to could determine the outcome of the selection of delegates from Maine. All 24 delegates go to the Tampa convention unbound, but that doesn't mean they don't have a presidential preference in tow. Of course, Romney has already claimed the endorsements of two of the Maine automatic delegates and the Paul campaign may further focus on the remaining caucuses in the state as a means of solidifying either its total number of county convention delegates or its lead in county convention delegates. [Again, we don't have a full set of information on the latter, but the possibility is worth noting.]
Where does that leave the total overall delegate count?
Ah, yes. It's time for FHQ's post-contest crankiness over the various projections of delegates coming off of yet another non-binding caucus, a total process from which unbound delegates will be selected to attend the Republican National Convention in Tampa. Look, I can appreciate the need to report some delegate count, but the simple truth of the matter is that while Maine delegates or Colorado delegates may have a particular preference for one candidate or another, we have no idea how many of which candidate's supporters moved through to the next step of the caucus process. None or at least only anecdotal evidence. What that evidence does not seem to suggest, however, is that the count is proportional.
...as it is being projected in WAY too many places.
The saving grace in all of this is that a flood of upcoming primaries will begin to render the discrepancies across various delegate counts less significant. Most of the primaries on the Republican side are binding in a way that these past several caucuses -- with the exception of Nevada -- have not been. As the delegate totals overall grow, the differences based on the falsely projected proportional allocation of non-binding caucus state delegates will have less and less influence.
...at least that is what I keep telling myself.
No candidate padded his total after Maine, but Paul seemingly picked up the support of one automatic delegate from Iowa with the election of one of the Texas congressman's co-chairs in Iowa as chairman of the Republican Party in the Hawkeye state. However, Chairman Spiker, upon that election resigned his post with the Paul campaign and stated that he would support whomever the national party nominee is. As a result, the totals from following the Colorado/Minnesota/Missouri troika of contests remains unchanged. The unbound category, though, increases by 22 (Maine) delegates.
Maine Results:
Recent Posts:
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Idaho Bill Eliminating Presidential Primary Passes House
The less extensive of two presidential primary bills passed the Idaho state House on Wednesday, February 8. H 391 found broad support in the chamber passing by a 56-12 margin. Both bills would eliminate the presidential primary line from the Gem state primary ballot, and that is the sole intent of H 391. The sister legislation (H 392) would also strike the presidential preference line from the primary ballot but would shift the remaining primaries for state and local office from May to August.
Idaho Democrats have traditionally held early caucuses in lieu of the state-funded primary in May. For the 2012 cycle, Idaho Republicans followed suit, abandoning the May presidential primary for a March caucus. With neither party utilizing the May primary as a means of allocating/binding delegates to the national conventions, the presidential primary option on the May ballot became unnecessary. That the Republican-controlled legislature is seemingly willing to eliminate the presidential primary signals something of a longer term commitment to the caucus process instead of a primary.
[NOTE: I'll try hard not to mention the fact that this would fly right in the face of supposed reforms. Oops.]
Hat tip to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for passing the news along to FHQ.
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Idaho Democrats have traditionally held early caucuses in lieu of the state-funded primary in May. For the 2012 cycle, Idaho Republicans followed suit, abandoning the May presidential primary for a March caucus. With neither party utilizing the May primary as a means of allocating/binding delegates to the national conventions, the presidential primary option on the May ballot became unnecessary. That the Republican-controlled legislature is seemingly willing to eliminate the presidential primary signals something of a longer term commitment to the caucus process instead of a primary.
[NOTE: I'll try hard not to mention the fact that this would fly right in the face of supposed reforms. Oops.]
Hat tip to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for passing the news along to FHQ.
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Don't Hold Your Breath: Caucus States Aren't Going Anywhere
Subtitle: The post in which FHQ takes out its scalpel and carves up a story overstating the likelihood of reform. I do not agree with Reid Wilson's piece up at the National Journal today.
...and there is a lot with which to disagree. What that article needs most, however, is context.
Look, FHQ doesn't have a dog in this fight. Unlike many others (mainly in the punditry), I don't engage in the normative arguments about the plusses and minuses of caucuses versus primaries. The simple fact of the matter is that it is up to the parties to decide. And throughout the post-reform era (1972-present), the national parties have deferred to the state parties on this issue of which mode of delegate allocation to utilize. The intention of the McGovern-Fraser reforms that took effect on the Democratic side in 1972 was actually to create more caucuses; to allow some participation of rank-and-file members of the party as a means of growing the party up from the grassroots. But state-level convenience overrode that unwritten intention. In reaction to the DNC's new mandate -- about binding delegates -- most states simply added presidential preference votes to their preexisting primary elections (assuming they fell roughly between a March-June window). Other states either immediately created separate presidential primary elections or gradually added them over time. It was the creation of those separate contests and in some cases the switch over from state party-funded caucuses to state-funded primaries also that most caused the frontloading of presidential nomination contests in the period between 1980-2008. [And don't hold your breath that that is over just because of what happened in the lead up to 2012.]
The point is that caucuses have largely disappeared as a part of that process. Yet, some states continue to use that mode of delegate allocation. And, again, that is something with which the national parties have been more than glad to go along. One of the pieces of political science research that FHQ cites most frequently on this front is the Meinke et al (2006) piece that makes quite clear the reason that some state parties prefer a caucus to a primary: It allows the state party more control over the process. The basic finding is that states where there is a lack of ideological convergence between the state party and the rank-and-file members of the party in the state are states where a closed caucus system is most often found (...closed primaries, too).
Now, again, pin whatever normative argument you please to that, but that is the way that it has been and the national parties have been fine with that. It would be completely out of character for the RNC to begin dictating to states what they can and can't do in terms of delegate allocation. The party has put in place some minimal restrictions on timing of primaries and caucuses over the years. It added rules that minimally changed the method of delegate allocation for 2012 -- curbing winner-take-all contests prior to April 1. And while FHQ has long argued that that latter change was a big step for the RNC, the change is not nearly as big as most have thought. Very plainly, the RNC is mostly hands off when it comes to this stuff.
The DNC, on the other hand, is not. The Democratic Party routinely tweaks its delegate selection rules from cycle to cycle and has over the years switched from a hands off entity on delegate selection to more hands on. The party since the 1980s, for instance, has required the proportional allocation of delegates to its national convention based either on a primary or the first step of a caucus/convention process. During the intervening period between the 2008 and 2012 cycles, both the Democratic Change Commission and then the Rules and Bylaws Committee, acting on the former's recommendations, looked into the caucus process in the wake of the benefits the Obama campaign reaped from the caucus process during the 2008 Democratic nomination race. And result was not to tear down the caucus process. Instead, the result was to honor "the spirit of caucuses as an institution and an in-person party building tool." The commission recommended developing a set of "best practices" for caucuses with the goal of making the caucus process more uniform across states. [It should be noted that those recommendations led to no noticeable changes to the DNC delegate selection rules in 2012 relative to 2008.]
FHQ doesn't know what will happen specifically with Iowa and Nevada on the Republican side in the future, but there likely won't be anything more that emerges from the 2016 rules than a set of best practices for caucus states generally from either party.1 Those best practices may include some way of dealing with the vote counting issue. [Is it just FHQ or is anyone else of the opinion that the length of the count in Nevada was a direct response to the counting issues in Iowa? Knowing the process was messed up in 2008, the Nevada Republican Party erred on the side of caution and made sure they had the count right. Of course, that doesn't explain the closed door policy surrounding the count, but that's a different issue.] As I have said repeatedly -- and perhaps you've ascertained as much by now as well -- this quadrennial dance whereby the national parties set rules and states and state parties respond is a messy one. Each of those entities -- national parties, state parties and states -- has a vested interest in the process, and getting them all on the same page across 50 states and additional territories is no small task. Iowa and New Hampshire and a handful of other states realize this and have exploited the extant tensions between various combinations of those groups to maintain or force their way into privileged positions on the calendar. Iowa's parties band together. Nevada's don't. And that may be the downfall latter's Republicans if they can't stand up for their position or demonstrate that there will be changes in place for future cycles.
Regular readers will know that FHQ is extremely skeptical of any broad, sweeping reform to the presidential nomination system. Again, I don't have a dog in the fight. Change or no change, it provides me with a research agenda either way. But the above reasons are why it is unlikely. What we are likely to see -- or should logically see perhaps -- is the parties go one step beyond the informal coordination they had in formulating a calendar and basic rules for 2012 and coordinate uniform penalties across the parties for states in violation of the rules. Otherwise the state parties and states will continue to pit the national parties against each other to game the system. Regardless, none of the changes are going to come anywhere close to ending the presence of caucuses in the process.
--
Some other items in Wilson's piece that need some response:
1) "Thanks to movements inside both the Republican and Democratic national committees, 2012 may mark the end of this presidential nominating system."
1 I don't know what will happen but I have my doubts that either -- Iowa or Nevada -- is going anywhere.
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
...and there is a lot with which to disagree. What that article needs most, however, is context.
Look, FHQ doesn't have a dog in this fight. Unlike many others (mainly in the punditry), I don't engage in the normative arguments about the plusses and minuses of caucuses versus primaries. The simple fact of the matter is that it is up to the parties to decide. And throughout the post-reform era (1972-present), the national parties have deferred to the state parties on this issue of which mode of delegate allocation to utilize. The intention of the McGovern-Fraser reforms that took effect on the Democratic side in 1972 was actually to create more caucuses; to allow some participation of rank-and-file members of the party as a means of growing the party up from the grassroots. But state-level convenience overrode that unwritten intention. In reaction to the DNC's new mandate -- about binding delegates -- most states simply added presidential preference votes to their preexisting primary elections (assuming they fell roughly between a March-June window). Other states either immediately created separate presidential primary elections or gradually added them over time. It was the creation of those separate contests and in some cases the switch over from state party-funded caucuses to state-funded primaries also that most caused the frontloading of presidential nomination contests in the period between 1980-2008. [And don't hold your breath that that is over just because of what happened in the lead up to 2012.]
The point is that caucuses have largely disappeared as a part of that process. Yet, some states continue to use that mode of delegate allocation. And, again, that is something with which the national parties have been more than glad to go along. One of the pieces of political science research that FHQ cites most frequently on this front is the Meinke et al (2006) piece that makes quite clear the reason that some state parties prefer a caucus to a primary: It allows the state party more control over the process. The basic finding is that states where there is a lack of ideological convergence between the state party and the rank-and-file members of the party in the state are states where a closed caucus system is most often found (...closed primaries, too).
Now, again, pin whatever normative argument you please to that, but that is the way that it has been and the national parties have been fine with that. It would be completely out of character for the RNC to begin dictating to states what they can and can't do in terms of delegate allocation. The party has put in place some minimal restrictions on timing of primaries and caucuses over the years. It added rules that minimally changed the method of delegate allocation for 2012 -- curbing winner-take-all contests prior to April 1. And while FHQ has long argued that that latter change was a big step for the RNC, the change is not nearly as big as most have thought. Very plainly, the RNC is mostly hands off when it comes to this stuff.
The DNC, on the other hand, is not. The Democratic Party routinely tweaks its delegate selection rules from cycle to cycle and has over the years switched from a hands off entity on delegate selection to more hands on. The party since the 1980s, for instance, has required the proportional allocation of delegates to its national convention based either on a primary or the first step of a caucus/convention process. During the intervening period between the 2008 and 2012 cycles, both the Democratic Change Commission and then the Rules and Bylaws Committee, acting on the former's recommendations, looked into the caucus process in the wake of the benefits the Obama campaign reaped from the caucus process during the 2008 Democratic nomination race. And result was not to tear down the caucus process. Instead, the result was to honor "the spirit of caucuses as an institution and an in-person party building tool." The commission recommended developing a set of "best practices" for caucuses with the goal of making the caucus process more uniform across states. [It should be noted that those recommendations led to no noticeable changes to the DNC delegate selection rules in 2012 relative to 2008.]
FHQ doesn't know what will happen specifically with Iowa and Nevada on the Republican side in the future, but there likely won't be anything more that emerges from the 2016 rules than a set of best practices for caucus states generally from either party.1 Those best practices may include some way of dealing with the vote counting issue. [Is it just FHQ or is anyone else of the opinion that the length of the count in Nevada was a direct response to the counting issues in Iowa? Knowing the process was messed up in 2008, the Nevada Republican Party erred on the side of caution and made sure they had the count right. Of course, that doesn't explain the closed door policy surrounding the count, but that's a different issue.] As I have said repeatedly -- and perhaps you've ascertained as much by now as well -- this quadrennial dance whereby the national parties set rules and states and state parties respond is a messy one. Each of those entities -- national parties, state parties and states -- has a vested interest in the process, and getting them all on the same page across 50 states and additional territories is no small task. Iowa and New Hampshire and a handful of other states realize this and have exploited the extant tensions between various combinations of those groups to maintain or force their way into privileged positions on the calendar. Iowa's parties band together. Nevada's don't. And that may be the downfall latter's Republicans if they can't stand up for their position or demonstrate that there will be changes in place for future cycles.
Regular readers will know that FHQ is extremely skeptical of any broad, sweeping reform to the presidential nomination system. Again, I don't have a dog in the fight. Change or no change, it provides me with a research agenda either way. But the above reasons are why it is unlikely. What we are likely to see -- or should logically see perhaps -- is the parties go one step beyond the informal coordination they had in formulating a calendar and basic rules for 2012 and coordinate uniform penalties across the parties for states in violation of the rules. Otherwise the state parties and states will continue to pit the national parties against each other to game the system. Regardless, none of the changes are going to come anywhere close to ending the presence of caucuses in the process.
--
Some other items in Wilson's piece that need some response:
1) "Thanks to movements inside both the Republican and Democratic national committees, 2012 may mark the end of this presidential nominating system."
Movements? What movements? Are there people in both parties that would like to see a change to the system? Yes. Is there a consensus on doing anything or in terms of what to do? No. Are we close to that? Well, the RNC passed the Ohio plan in 2008 which would have fundamentally rewritten the presidential nomination process, but it was quashed at the St. Paul convention and was never really a seriously discussed alternative at the Republican Temporary Delegate Selection Committee meetings that recommended changes to the Republican Party's delegate selection rules.2) "The sticks established in 2010—namely, halving a state’s convention delegation and giving them lousy hotel rooms—weren’t enough."
The sticks on the Republican side were not enough. But it bears repeating that the Democrats, both in 2008 and now in 2012, have a penalty in place to strip any candidate of their delegates from any state in violation of the party's rules if the candidate campaigns in that violating state. The rationale: Penalties keep the candidates away and in the process keeps the media away. States that desire an early slot want that attention. If said attention is not forthcoming, the motivation to move up is removed. In isolation -- used by only one party as the Democrats found out in 2008 with Florida and Michigan -- that is perhaps an ineffective tool; particularly if Republicans control the strings that set the date of a primary or caucus in a state. However, across both parties -- with both enforcing it -- that is likely a fairly adequate deterrent.3) "Because Iowa and Nevada don’t actually allocate delegates until much later, they thrive only on media attention."
Wilson also raises the notion of delegates being allocated at district and state conventions in caucus states, and that the precinct vote is nothing but a straw poll. True. Nevada is an exception and that is not made clear in his piece. The allocation and binding of the Nevada Republican delegates is based on the proportion of the vote each candidate received in the caucuses on February 4.
And while we're on the subject, it should be noted that all states allocate their delegates "later". Yes, even in primary states where there is a parallel process whereby delegates are selected. That allocation, however, is binding based on the results of the primary or caucus (in the case of Nevada.)4) "Reform is coming soon..."
Perhaps, but don't hold your breath that it will fundamentally change the current system. The national parties are plenty satisfied to incrementally chip away at reform whenever it becomes necessary.--
1 I don't know what will happen but I have my doubts that either -- Iowa or Nevada -- is going anywhere.
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Race to 1144: Santorum Tuesday (Colorado, Minnesota & Missouri*)
.png)
Source:
Contest Delegates (via contest results and rules, and RNC)
Automatic Delegates (Democratic Convention Watch)
Delegate breakdown (post-February 7 contests):
Romney: 91 delegates (New Hampshire: 7, South Carolina: 2, Florida: 50, Nevada: 14, Automatic: 18)
Gingrich: 32 delegates (South Carolina: 23, Nevada: 6, Automatic: 3)
Paul: 8 delegates (New Hampshire: 3, Nevada: 5)
Santorum: 4 delegates (Nevada: 3, Automatic: 1)
Unbound: (Iowa: 25, Colorado: 33, Minnesota: 37, Automatic: 7, Huntsman: 2)
A few notes on the delegates and delegate counts:
1. The Romney campaign was right Tuesday when it released its memorandum detailing essentially how inconsequential the contests that day were. There were no delegates directly on the line -- no delegates to the national convention anyway -- in any of the three contests. However, there were delegates selected in both Colorado and Minnesota to move on the next steps in their respective caucus/convention processes. And that is where the problem lies. If this was the Democratic Party process it would be much easier to track as the totals from one step to the next maintain -- minus some occasional rounding error to prevent fractional delegates -- the proportion of the candidates' vote shares from the first determining step of the caucus. If Obama receives 50% of the vote in a given caucus, Obama would be allocated approximately 50% of the delegates throughout and at the end of the process. Again, approximately.
But the Republican process isn't like that. There is no requirement from the national party that any part of the caucus process be proportional. And no step of the caucus process in any caucus state is proportional unless that is the preference of the state party as codified in either their state party rules, bylaws or constitutions. As such, delegates from those states cannot be allocated until, well, they are allocated. In Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado and over the weekend add Maine to the mix, that won't happen until the congressional district or state conventions.
Now, some will say that we have more information than that. We do, and I wholeheartedly agree with Jonathan Bernstein that the straw poll results at the precinct caucuses provide us with something of a baseline from which to project the eventual delegate allocation. It is a good baseline, but it is a flawed baseline for projection. The problem is that we have no idea how close or how far off that proportional estimate is. We know the straw poll results, but we don't have one iota of evidence one way or the other about the precinct caucusgoers who were either selected or volunteered to be county or district delegates. Nor do we have an accurate picture of their presidential preferences. Things like the following also give me some pause (from a press release from Paul national campaign manager, John Tate):
“We are thrilled with the yesterday’s results. Our campaign to Restore America continues to gain ground, and we are poised to pick up even more delegates from Minnesota and Colorado adding to our delegates in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.
“As people across the country view the results of yesterday’s contests, it is important to consider a few facts that have not been clearly reported. Not one single delegate was awarded yesterday, instead the caucuses in Minnesota and Colorado were the very first step in the delegate selection process. And there are still over 40 states left to go. The Ron Paul campaign plans to continue to vie for delegates nationwide.
“There are a few significant takeaways from yesterday’s contests to remember:
1) The Missouri primary means nothing. It was a non-binding beauty contest, and the contest that matters in the ‘show me’ state won’t take place for another month. The Ron Paul campaign is well positioned to win delegates in Missouri’s caucus a month from now.
2) As in Iowa where not 1 of the 28 delegates has been awarded yet, in Colorado and Nevada the Paul campaign will do very well in the state delegate counts. We will have good numbers among the actual delegates awarded, far exceeding our straw poll numbers.
3) In Minnesota where we have finished a solid second, we also have a strong majority of the state convention delegates, and the process to elect delegates has also just begun, the Paul campaign is well-organized to win the bulk of delegates there.
“We are confident in gaining a much larger share of delegates than even our impressive showing yesterday indicates. As an example of our campaign’s delegate strength, take a look at what has occurred in Colorado:
- In one precinct in Larimer County, the straw poll vote was 23 for Santorum, 13 for Paul, 5 for Romney, 2 for Gingrich. There were 13 delegate slots, and Ron Paul got ALL 13.
- In a precinct in Delta County the vote was 22 for Santorum, 12 for Romney, 8 for Paul, 7 for Gingrich. There were 5 delegate slots, and ALL 5 went to Ron Paul.
- In a Pueblo County precinct, the vote was 16 for Santorum, 11 for Romney, 3 for Gingrich and 2 for Paul. There were 2 delegate slots filled, and both were filled by Ron Paul supporters.
Now, just as the Romney memo above was setting the expectations low on Tuesday, the Paul campaign may have cherrypicked a few instances where Paul supporters were able to dominate the county/district delegate selection. The thing is, we don't know. And that is the problem. If, on the one hand, we have a straw poll for a rough estimate of support of those in attendance at the caucuses, then on the other, we have also have some evidence that organization is potentially playing a role in if not taking all the delegate slots then flipping the tables and taking more than would be proportionally allocated to a particular candidate based on the straw poll results. The straw polls favored Santorum in Colorado and Minnesota, but did that enthusiasm to vote for Santorum or against Romney stretch into the delegate selection process or is that where organization -- mostly from Paul, but to a lesser extent from Romney -- picked up and took over? [Actually, Paul supporters likely have a combination of both things: organization and enthusiasm.] The answer is likely somewhere in the middle as opposed to one extreme or the other. And that is enough to make FHQ wary of pushing any delegate toward any one candidate based on the straw poll alone.
The state parties are unlikely to provide a breakdown of those delegates' preferences at any step in the caucus process and in the end they all technically go to the convention unbound anyway.
One thing to eye throughout the race as it moves forward is -- and I mentioned this in the Missouri rules post Tuesday night -- what the dynamics are in the race when the district and state conventions roll around in the caucus states. If the race is competitive, the ultimate delegate allocation may trend toward something more proportional. If, on the other hand, one candidate has broken from the pack in the delegate count and is either approaching 1144 or has established a margin that would be difficult to overcome given the remaining delegates available (and allocation), then the caucuses may end up doing what they usually end up doing regardless of the initial precinct caucus straw poll: side with the presumptive nominee heading into the convention anyway.
2. FHQ likes being on the conservative end of the spectrum on these things; whether it is a delegate count or an electoral college projection.
3. The results:
a. Colorado
b. Minnesota
c. And just for the fun of it, Missouri's non-binding caucuses (which have absolutely nothing to do with the delegate allocation in the Show Me state. That process begins with precinct caucuses on March 17.)
4. This whole delegate counting process is easier in primary states with defined rules and binding mechanisms.
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Northern Marianas Republicans Set for March 10 Convention
Republicans in the Northern Marianas have settled on a date for their delegate selection. The territory's Republicans will hold a convention on Saturday, March 10 for the purposes of allocating delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa. Of the nine delegates at stake, six will be selected at the convention. The remaining three delegates are the territory's automatic delegates.
Guam now is the only state or territory without a date on the presidential primary calendar (...that is not also mired in a dispute over congressional district boundaries affecting a presidential primary date).
Thanks to Tony Roza at The Green Papers for sharing the news.
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Missouri
This is the ninth 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.
MISSOURI
Missouri Republicans will caucus on March 17. It will be the first time since 1996 that the party has held caucuses as a means of allocating delegates to the national convention instead of a primary. Note that FHQ will spend very little time discussing the non-binding primary that is taking place this evening. In the delegate count, it is meaningless as compared to the other two contests in Colorado and Minnesota today. The latter two bear the distinction of having voters -- caucusgoers -- actually cast votes in a process that will ultimately choose delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa.
[The very short version of why the primary became non-binding and the caucus came to be is that a deep division within the Republicans in the majority in both houses of the Missouri General Assembly over whether to maintain a non-compliant February primary or move back to a compliant March primary kept the caucuses in both the state House and Senate at loggerheads all year in 2011. The one bill they were able to pass -- to move the primary to March 6 -- also contained a provision that stripped Governor Jay Nixon (D) of the appointment power that allows the Missouri governor the ability to fill vacancies to statewide office. That bill got a veto and the special session efforts thereafter to either move the primary back or cancel the primary outright failed. That was the very short version!?! As short as I could make it. For the full story click on the "Missouri" label here or at the bottom of the post and scroll down, down, down through all of the 2011 Missouri posts.]
February diversion aside, then, how exactly will the Missouri Republican caucuses work next month? Well, it won't be unlike what has happened in Colorado and Minnesota tonight. Missouri Republicans were apportioned 52 delegates by the Republican National Committee. Here is how those delegates breakdown and how they are allocated to the convention in Tampa:2
--
1 FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories and Washington, DC.
2 Below is the call to the Missouri Republican convention spelling out the rules of delegate allocation:
Missouri Republican 2012 Call to Convention
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
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.
MISSOURI
Missouri Republicans will caucus on March 17. It will be the first time since 1996 that the party has held caucuses as a means of allocating delegates to the national convention instead of a primary. Note that FHQ will spend very little time discussing the non-binding primary that is taking place this evening. In the delegate count, it is meaningless as compared to the other two contests in Colorado and Minnesota today. The latter two bear the distinction of having voters -- caucusgoers -- actually cast votes in a process that will ultimately choose delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa.
[The very short version of why the primary became non-binding and the caucus came to be is that a deep division within the Republicans in the majority in both houses of the Missouri General Assembly over whether to maintain a non-compliant February primary or move back to a compliant March primary kept the caucuses in both the state House and Senate at loggerheads all year in 2011. The one bill they were able to pass -- to move the primary to March 6 -- also contained a provision that stripped Governor Jay Nixon (D) of the appointment power that allows the Missouri governor the ability to fill vacancies to statewide office. That bill got a veto and the special session efforts thereafter to either move the primary back or cancel the primary outright failed. That was the very short version!?! As short as I could make it. For the full story click on the "Missouri" label here or at the bottom of the post and scroll down, down, down through all of the 2011 Missouri posts.]
February diversion aside, then, how exactly will the Missouri Republican caucuses work next month? Well, it won't be unlike what has happened in Colorado and Minnesota tonight. Missouri Republicans were apportioned 52 delegates by the Republican National Committee. Here is how those delegates breakdown and how they are allocated to the convention in Tampa:2
- 25 at-large delegates: At-large delegates will be selected at the Missouri Republican state convention on June 1-2. As has been the case in most of the other caucus states thus far with the exception of Nevada, there are no rules dictating the method in which delegates are selected from one step of the process to the next. There is no proportional. There is no winner-take-all. There may be some of each in some precincts with the former more likely in competitive precincts and the latter more prevalent in less competitive precincts or in precincts where caucusgoers committed to one candidate or another stick around not only for the presidential preference straw poll vote but for the actual selection of delegates to the county level as well. Unlike what has happened in Iowa or Colorado, the at-large delegates in Missouri are bound for one ballot at the national convention to the candidate they pledged to at the state convention.
- 24 congressional district delegates: Similarly, the congressional district delegates -- 3 for each of the 8 Missouri congressional districts -- are allocated and pledged based on the selection during the April 21 congressional caucuses across the Show Me state.
- 3 automatic delegates: The Missouri Republican call for convention also contains two other lines about the actions to be taken at the state convention relevant to the automatic delegates from the state: 1) "Pledging all delegates and alternates to support a Republican Presidential Candidate as provided in this Call to Convention." and 2) "Electing a man and a woman to serve as members of the Republican National Committee from the state of Missouri." What that means is that all the delegates will be bound and that two of the automatic delegates -- the national committeeman and national committeewoman will be elected at the state convention. The only possibility -- and FHQ isn't really suggesting that this is anything remotely approaching a reality -- for a free agent is the state party chairman and that position would seemingly be covered by the binding mechanism described above. [What party chair would cross the rules and an entire convention?]
--
1 FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories and Washington, DC.
2 Below is the call to the Missouri Republican convention spelling out the rules of delegate allocation:
Missouri Republican 2012 Call to Convention
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Minnesota
This is the eighth 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.
MINNESOTA
It gets old typing "just see the Iowa post for how the delegate allocation works in caucus state X". Yet, with some variation from caucus state to caucus state, that really is pretty much how things are. That said, there are some noteworthy differences in how the caucus system works for Minnesota Republicans. The RNC apportioned 40 delegates (of the 2286 total delegates nationally) to Republicans in the Land of 10,000 Lakes. Here is how they break down:
--
1 FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories and Washington, DC.
2 The relevant section is in Article V, Section 5:
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
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.
MINNESOTA
It gets old typing "just see the Iowa post for how the delegate allocation works in caucus state X". Yet, with some variation from caucus state to caucus state, that really is pretty much how things are. That said, there are some noteworthy differences in how the caucus system works for Minnesota Republicans. The RNC apportioned 40 delegates (of the 2286 total delegates nationally) to Republicans in the Land of 10,000 Lakes. Here is how they break down:
- 13 at-large delegates: At-large delegates are selected at the Minnesota Republican Party state convention and according to the rules governing the delegate selection process in the party constitution may be bound for up to one ballot at the national convention.2 The decision on whether to bind at-large delegates is made at the state convention on May 18-19.
- 24 congressional district delegates: Like Colorado and Iowa, the Minnesota congressional district delegates -- 3 in each of the 8 Minnesota congressional districts -- will be allocated at the congressional district conventions. None of these delegates are bound, but are selected from among the pool of delegates who are selected at the precinct, then county, then legislative district caucuses. Again, there is no direct transference of presidential preference from one step to the next, and there are no rules governing which delegates get chosen and how. Also, there is no requirement that there be either winner-take-all or proportional allocation at the precinct level and onward. It may ultimately end up that way, but it may be that those who are committed to staying long enough and/or are committed to being delegates get chosen to move to the next step in the process. [This is why any premature projection of delegates from these non-binding contests is so ridiculous, but I digress...] The bottom line is that there may some underlying presidential preference that emerges through the process -- the precinct caucus straw polls serve as a baseline -- but these congressional district delegates, and more than likely the at-large delegates will go to the Tampa convention unbound.
- 3 automatic delegates: The three automatic delegates are also technically unbound, but are free to endorse whomever they choose. To this point only one Minnesota automatic delegate, Jeff Johnson, has weighed in on the race. The Minnesota Republican National Committeeman has endorsed Newt Gingrich.
--
1 FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories and Washington, DC.
2 The relevant section is in Article V, Section 5:
Election and Terms of Delegates.
A. All state, Congressional District, BPOU, and Delegates and Alternates shall be elected in general election years and shall hold office for a term of two years or until their successors are elected, or upon adoption in their respective BPOU constitution, they may elect Delegates and Alternates to the Congressional District and state conventions annually in the same manner as provided in the general election year, and these Delegates and Alternates elected under this option shall hold office for a term of one year, or until their successors are duly elected.
B. All affiliate Delegates and Alternates shall serve a two year term or until their successors are elected. Affiliate Delegates and Alternates shall not hold the same office for consecutive terms. An affiliate Delegate or Alternate may not be a regular party Delegate or Alternate to the same convention. Affiliate Delegates and Alternates to Congressional District conventions must reside in the Congressional District and must be elected by the affiliate members who reside in the Congressional District and will be legally qualified voters in the next general election.
C. In compliance with the rules of the Republican National Convention, no Delegate or Alternate may be an automatic Delegate or Alternate. Each Delegate or Alternate must be elected by his/her respective convention. No Delegate to the Republican National Convention shall be bound by party rules or by state law to cast his/her vote for a particular candidate on any ballot at the convention except that the state convention may bind the Delegates whom it elects to the National Convention of the Republican Party on the first ballot to vote for a candidate for the office of President of the United States, unless they be released by said candidate.
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Colorado
This is the seventh 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.
COLORADO
As unique as the Nevada caucuses were -- in terms of being the rare binding caucus -- the Colorado caucuses represent a different atypical attribute. The rules behind most caucuses are within the domain of the state parties, but in Colorado -- and as we will see later today, Minnesota as well -- the basic structure of the presidential precinct caucuses is derived from state law. While that state law dictates the date (or dates) on which the caucuses can be held, who can participate and where caucuses can be held among other requirements, the state parties are not without influence over the process. The Colorado state parties just have slightly less control over every aspect of the process than most of the remaining caucus states.
On the Republican side, the Colorado Republican Party has some latitude in allocating the 36 delegates apportioned to it by the RNC. The four step caucus process starts with the precinct caucuses tonight -- the only event other than the state convention on one uniform date -- and moves through county assemblies (February 17-March 28) and then congressional district assemblies (March 29-April 13) before finishing at the state convention on April 14. Delegates are chosen in the precinct caucuses to move on to the county caucuses, and so on through the remaining steps of the process.
A few notes on the delegate selection process in Colorado:
1 FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories and Washington, DC.
2 The catch here is that delegate preference is not necessarily known the night of the precinct caucuses. Delegate candidates can chose to run pledged to a particular candidate or unpledged, but that preference has to be made official 13 days prior to either the congressional district assemblies (in the case of congressional district delegates) or the state convention (in the case of at-large delegates). The Colorado Republican Party keeps tabs on this by requiring each potential national convention delegate file a "National Delegate Intent Form".
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
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.
COLORADO
As unique as the Nevada caucuses were -- in terms of being the rare binding caucus -- the Colorado caucuses represent a different atypical attribute. The rules behind most caucuses are within the domain of the state parties, but in Colorado -- and as we will see later today, Minnesota as well -- the basic structure of the presidential precinct caucuses is derived from state law. While that state law dictates the date (or dates) on which the caucuses can be held, who can participate and where caucuses can be held among other requirements, the state parties are not without influence over the process. The Colorado state parties just have slightly less control over every aspect of the process than most of the remaining caucus states.
On the Republican side, the Colorado Republican Party has some latitude in allocating the 36 delegates apportioned to it by the RNC. The four step caucus process starts with the precinct caucuses tonight -- the only event other than the state convention on one uniform date -- and moves through county assemblies (February 17-March 28) and then congressional district assemblies (March 29-April 13) before finishing at the state convention on April 14. Delegates are chosen in the precinct caucuses to move on to the county caucuses, and so on through the remaining steps of the process.
- 21 of the national convention delegates from those who have moved on to that step will be selected at the congressional district assemblies (3 delegates for each of Colorado's seven congressional districts).
- 12 of the remaining 15 delegates -- the at-large delegates -- are chosen at the state convention from among the delegates who have been selected to attend the state convention.
- The final three delegates are the Centennial state's automatic delegates (the state party chair, the national committeeman and the national committeewoman).
A few notes on the delegate selection process in Colorado:
- Technically, the delegates selected throughout the process and more importantly those selected to go to the Republican National Convention in Tampa are unbound to any candidate.
- However, and this is an important point that is not receiving much attention today, if a delegate has pledged support for a candidate, then that pledge is valid until the candidate to whom that delegate is pledged withdraws from the race, releases his or her delegates or is not nominated.2
- Not to repeat what we said in the post on Iowa delegate allocation, but there are no formalized rules for selecting delegates at the precinct level to move on to the county assemblies. In other words, the number of delegates moving out of any given precinct caucus, may be proportionate to the vote for the candidates, but it is not required. It may be that those county assembly slots go to the folks that hang around at the meeting the longest. [This is the part that causes so many to say that organization matters in caucuses. Being organized enough to contact and make sure that your supporters claim those spots is a big deal.]
- Due to the above, as FHQ has said in the past, it is naive to think that there is no transference of presidential preference from one caucus step to the next. But for Colorado, as was the case in Iowa, there is no requirement that it be proportional or winner-take-all.
- Finally, the whole process will be complete and delegates will be selected to go to the national convention by April 14. That is a fairly big deal when taken with the "National Delegate Intent Form". Though Colorado delegates are unbound, not all are likely to be unpledged. No, FHQ doesn't want to get mired in a discussion of semantic, but those two -- unbound and unpledged -- are terms that can and often are (accurately) used interchangeably. The only truly unbound delegates from Colorado are the three automatic delegates and those unpledged delegates who emerge from the congressional district conventions.
1 FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories and Washington, DC.
2 The catch here is that delegate preference is not necessarily known the night of the precinct caucuses. Delegate candidates can chose to run pledged to a particular candidate or unpledged, but that preference has to be made official 13 days prior to either the congressional district assemblies (in the case of congressional district delegates) or the state convention (in the case of at-large delegates). The Colorado Republican Party keeps tabs on this by requiring each potential national convention delegate file a "National Delegate Intent Form".
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)