2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Mississippi

This is the twenty-second 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.


MISSISSIPPI

Contrary to how the December RNC memo on delegate allocation by state described it, Mississippi is not exactly proportional.² Well, it is, but not in the same way that all of the delegates from New Hampshire or Massachusetts were. Instead, the formula is slightly more complicated. First, what's at state in the Magnolia state on Tuesday?

Mississippi delegate breakdown:

• 40 total delegates
• 25 at-large delegates
• 12 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

At-large allocation: The 25 at-large delegates are all allocated to the winner of the statewide vote if that  candidate receives a majority of the vote. If no candidate clears the 50% barrier, then the allocation is proportional to those candidates who have received over 15% of the vote.

Notes: As was/will be the case in Alabama, this means that a close race -- like the tight three way race that the polling in the state seems to indicate -- yields a near even allocation of at-large delegates among Gingrich, Romney and Santorum. Again, this would greatly resemble what we witnessed in Oklahoma. 

Congressional district allocation: The three congressional district delegates per each of the four Mississippi districts are also allocated winner-take-all if one candidate is able to garner a majority of the vote. Now, if no candidate clears the 50% mark is where this gets interesting -- especially in light of a potentially tight three way race. With no one over the majority point and with three candidates likely over the 15% threshold, none of the three candidates is going to be mathematically able to gain enough separation to round up to more than one delegate. In a race with three candidates over 15% within any one of the congressional districts, one candidate would have to get over half of the vote to even round up to two delegates. And of course, at that level, a candidate would receive all three delegates. In all likelihood, a candidate will have to clear the 20% mark within a congressional district to be able to round up to one full delegate; particularly if that candidate is in third place.

Notes: Mississippi, then, ends up looking an awful lot like Oklahoma (...on the condition that the vote mirrors the recent polling in the state. That is anything but a certainty.): a proportional allocation of the at-large delegates and an evenly distributed allocation of the three congressional district delegates to the three candidates over 15%. But on the congressional district level there may be some measure of variation across districts that may alter the possibility of one district delegate per candidate pattern.

Automatic delegate allocation: The three automatic delegates -- as is the case with most of them across the country -- are free to endorse or pledge themselves to a candidate of their choosing. In Mississippi, one automatic delegate has already endorsed Mitt Romney.

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

² Mississippi Republican Party delegate allocation rules:
2012 Mississippi Republican Delegate Allocation Rules

Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Alabama

Race to 1144: Super Tuesday, Kansas/Territories

About that RNC Delegate Count...

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Alabama

This is the twenty-first 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.


ALABAMA

Truth be told, FHQ has already examined the Alabama Republican Party delegate allocation rules.² But for the sake of refreshing our collective memories, let's review and with a compare and contrast:

Alabama delegate breakdown:

• 50 total delegates
• 26 at-large delegates
• 21 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

At-large allocation: If one candidate receives a majority of the statewide vote, then that candidate is entitled to all 26 at-large delegates, otherwise the allocation is proportional to all candidates over 20% of the vote.

Notes: This is like the at-large allocation in Oklahoma on Super Tuesday with the exception that the threshold for receiving delegates in the Sooner state was 15% and not 20%.

Congressional district allocation: If a candidate receives a majority of the vote in any one of the seven congressional districts in Alabama, that candidate is allocated all three delegates from that district. However, if no candidate receives a majority, the top vote-getter receives two delegates while the runner-up receives one. Should only one candidate break the 20% barrier within the district, that candidate is entitled to all three delegates from that district.

Notes: Keep Oklahoma in mind for a moment. The congressional district allocation in Alabama is most akin to the allocation in Georgia on Super Tuesday. The difference is that while Georgia was a two person race across most of the state -- when Gingrich failed to receive a majority of the vote, he most often split the allocation with Romney and not Santorum -- Alabama is shaping up to be a three person race according to the polls. Now, the polls in some of these Deep South states should be taken with a grain of salt given historical precedent. But if the race ends up being the dead heat it looks to be, then the delegate allocation could end up being a little quirky because the dynamics of the congressional district allocation. While the allocation in Oklahoma granted each candidate over 15% of the vote within the congressional district one delegate each (something that happened in each of the five districts in the Sooner state), depending on how the Alabama vote breaks down within each congressional district could offset any edge gained in the at-large allocation if the statewide winner wins by a small margin. Due to the current optics of this primary, the delegate allocation could be as tight as it was in Oklahoma or the margin could shift toward the statewide winner (depending on the votes by congressional district).

Automatic allocation: Easy enough. The three automatic delegates are unbound and free to choose whomever they please. One of the three Alabama automatic delegates has already endorsed Rick Santorum.

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

² The following is the delegate selection plan the Alabama Republican Party publicly released in August 2011:
2012.al.gop.pres.primary.rules

Recent Posts:
Race to 1144: Super Tuesday, Kansas/Territories

About that RNC Delegate Count...

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Kansas

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

Race to 1144: Super Tuesday, Kansas/Territories

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

Delegate breakdown (post-Super Tuesday, Kansas/Territories):    

Notes:
1) The allocation of the delegates in Georgia is based on the most recent vote returns published online by the office of the Georgia Secretary of State. The allocation here differs from the RNC allocation in Georgia. The above grants Gingrich two additional delegates (which have been taken from Romney's total).

2) The Tennessee primary results by congressional district have not been released by the Tennessee Republican Party. The allocation above is based on the RNC interpretation of the allocation.

3) Take note of the fact that both the percentage of total bound delegates and percentage of delegates needed to clinch the nomination have been added to the table for each candidate.

4) Iowa Republican Party Chairman Spiker was a part of the Paul campaign in Iowa and resigned his position upon taking up the post of party chair. While he has expressed his intent to side with whomever the Republican nominee will be, Spiker has not also directly signaled any neutrality in the race. The door is open for his support of Paul at a potential contested convention. While FHQ includes Spiker in Paul's delegate total, it is necessary to make note of the possible future subtraction of one delegate that would bring the Texas congressman's total to 23.


Recent Posts:
About that RNC Delegate Count...

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Kansas

Romney Sweeps Northern Mariana Islands 9 Delegates

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

About that RNC Delegate Count...

Now, FHQ makes no bones about it: We are no fans of the Associated Press delegate projection. Yeah, that's right. I said it. The AP has a projection of delegates; not a count. The distinction is important if we are to accurately count the number of delegates allocated to each candidate. What the AP is doing is taking delegates bound to candidates (but not, truth be told, actually allocated yet) by the primaries and a handful of binding caucuses thus far and adding on top of that total a fantasy proportional allocation of delegates in the non-binding caucus states.¹

But enough AP bashing.

You will also notice that FHQ has yet to update its delegate count to include the numbers from Super Tuesday. That is equal parts slow wading through the results and waiting on the RNC delegate count which FHQ uses as a kind of baseline check on our count. Now that the RNC count is out though, I take issue with some of their count based on the numbers I have. Overall they have:

Romney: 339
Gingrich: 107
Santorum: 95
Paul: 22 

But the issues:

1. No one -- or very few anyway -- have access to the Tennessee numbers; particularly the results by congressional district. The Tennessee secretary of state did not tabulate the vote by congressional districts. Well, they tabulated the delegate elections by congressional districts but not the topline presidential preference vote. It was the Tennessee Republican Party that did that tabulation, and they aren't releasing the numbers until the vote is certified or close to certified. TNGOP asked me to call back on Monday or Tuesday to check on their progress. [Note to self: Be more persistent next time. And hey, don't they know who I am? That ridiculously nitpicky delegate counter.] So we are all kind of taking AP's or the RNC's word on this one. And yes, FHQ is fully aware of the fact that the TNGOP is way more likely to share their results with the national party than FHQ. The Tennessee results are a minor point but still worth noting.
2. There is a discrepancy between the RNC count of the county delegates allocated thus far in Wyoming and what is being reported in the Equality state. The RNC says Romney has won three delegates, Paul one and that one other delegate will head to the convention uncommitted. But six counties have elected delegates thus far and as the Casper Star-Tribune reports Romney has received four with Paul at one and the remaining delegate uncommitted.² 
3. Finally, FHQ has done the math at least three times now for Georgia based on the results currently being reported by the secretary of state's office in the Peach state. FHQ has Gingrich with 47% of the vote pulling in 20 of the proportionally allocated 31 at-large delegates and Romney with the remaining 11 as the only other candidate over the 20% threshold to receive delegates. Gingrich by virtue of his statewide win is also entitled to the three Georgia automatic delegates. In the congressional count, Gingrich won 12 of the 14 districts (5 of them with a majority of the vote). That nets Gingrich 31 of the 42 district delegates. Romney won the two remaining congressional districts (but not with a majority) and placed second (worth one delegate) in four other districts. Santorum placed second in three districts which would have gotten him three delegates.

If you have been adding these up that yields:
Gingrich: 54
Romney: 19
Santorum: 3

But the RNC has the count at:
Gingrich: 52
Romney: 21
Santorum: 3

It is worth pointing out that while the Georgia secretary of state is reporting all of the precincts in, only 99% of the votes are in. Now that is likely provisional ballots that are still outstanding. FHQ has no indication of how many of those votes are out. But the thing is that nothing in the reported results indicates that Gingrich and Romney are all that close in a district or statewide to warrant a two delegate swing anywhere. It is curious.

All told, FHQ now has problems with the AP projection and the RNC count. Again, the RNC has the preferred method in our neck of the woods, but they seem to be off a little -- at least based on the information FHQ has access to. Pushing aside the Tennessee issue -- until the count can be adequately dealt with -- the RNC count would need to be adjusted:

Romney: 339 (+1 Wyoming, -2 Georgia) = 338

Gingrich: 107 (+2 Georgia) = 109

Santorum: 95

Paul: 22 

I know what you're saying. C'mon FHQ! We're talking about three delegates here. True, but if we're all going to attempt to be accurate with this, then we need to be accurate.

...not partially accurate. 

--

¹ And then there is the AP's contention that the Santorum win in Minnesota was enough to warrant a winner-take-all allocation of its 37 delegates. Don't get me started on the logic of that decision. Suffice it to say, there is nothing in Minnesota Republican Party rules that indicates any such allocation based on the precinct caucuses.

² The remaining six county delegates will be chosen on March 10 in Wyoming. 

Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Kansas

Romney Sweeps Northern Mariana Islands 9 Delegates

Guam Goes for Romney

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Kansas

This is the twentieth 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.


KANSAS

With caucuses set to begin across Kansas later today, a quick look at how those 40 delegates will be allocated is probably a useful exercise. Republicans in the Sunflower state -- like those in Nevada, Idaho and Alaska before them -- will actually bind delegates based on the results of the closed precinct caucuses.² But let's have a closer look:³

Kansas delegation breakdown:

• 40 total delegates
• 25 at-large delegates
• 12 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

First of all, since the Kansas precinct caucuses are binding, the allocation has to qualify as "proportional" in the eyes of the RNC. The bare minimum action to achieve that distinction is to allocate at-large delegate proportionate to a candidate's share of the vote. That is what Kansas Republicans have done. Candidates are eligible for a proportionate share of the 25 at-large delegates if they receive at least 20% of the vote statewide. [FHQ went into some detail about this yesterday when Kansas was used as an example in our post-Super Tuesday examination of the delegate math.] Everyone should be eyeing Ron Paul today and whether the Texas congressman is able to surpass the 20% barrier. Santorum looks to be poised for victory and Romney will likely cross 20%, but whether Paul gets there will determine how these at-large delegates are allocated. If only one candidate breaks the 20% barrier or no candidates get there, the allocation reverts to a straight proportional method for everyone.

For the congressional district delegates the formula is simple: Win the district, win the delegates. Each of the four Kansas congressional districts has three delegates. A clean sweep of all four means 12 delegates for the winner in addition to the three automatic delegates -- who are bound according to the results of the statewide vote (to the winner).

In other words, if one candidate has a consensus victory across the state -- both statewide and in the four congressional districts -- that candidate will start out with a base 15 delegates before the at-large delegates are proportionally allocated.

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

² Caucusgoers have to be registered Republicans to participate. Independents and Democrats can participate if they switched their registration on or before February 17.

³ Below is the Kansas Republican Party delegate selection plan:
2012 Kansas Caucus Rules


Recent Posts:
Romney Sweeps Northern Mariana Islands 9 Delegates

Guam Goes for Romney

The Revenge of Santorum Can't Get to 1144

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

Romney Sweeps Northern Mariana Islands 9 Delegates

FHQ will not belabor the point here. After all, the story is much the same as the one out of Guam in the early hours of Saturday morning. But Mitt Romney won the caucuses/convention in the Northern Mariana Islands today and with it the nine delegates apportioned it by the Republican National Committee.

One thing that should be noted in all of this -- before the inevitable uproar over why these places have delegates -- is that neither Guam nor the Northern Mariana Islands are winner-take-all contests. It just looks that way now that Romney has claimed the entire 18 delegate cache from both. No, as FHQ mention earlier in the Guam post, the RNC considers these unbound delegates and will likely continue to do so in its delegate count. However, in both cases the newly chosen delegations have opted to endorse the former Massachusetts governor.

I know, I know. But Romney won all of the delegates; that's winner-take-all. He did and it is, but according to the rules these contests (and the caucuses in the Virgin Islands later today and in American Samoa on Tuesday) are producing unbound delegates. From the perspective of the rules, then, these contests are not winner-take-all, but procedurally they have been.

--
The delegation in the Northern Marianas breaks down in a similar fashion to Guam. There are three automatic delegates (party chair, national committeeman and national committeewoman) and six additional delegates. The automatic delegates were already in place, but the the caucuses in Saipan on Saturday selected the remaining six delegates in the delegation from a pool of 16 candidates.


Recent Posts:
Guam Goes for Romney

The Revenge of Santorum Can't Get to 1144

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: North Dakota

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

Guam Goes for Romney

...unanimously.

...and by a show of hands.

Not unimportantly, Mitt Romney won the Guam caucuses/convention in Saturday voting in the Pacific territory of the US. With the victory came all nine of the delegates in Guam -- both the 3 automatic delegates and the six other delegates apportioned to the territory. All nine are technically unbound and will likely continue to be consider as such by the RNC in its ongoing delegate count. However, all nine delegates have opted to recognize the will of the caucus and support the winner, Romney.

FHQ says "not unimportantly" because those nine delegates -- in the midst of any delegate fight -- are quite potentially much larger than one would assume a tiny territory to be in a nationwide battle for the Republican nomination. It isn't the nine delegates so much as the nine delegate margin. That margin is larger for Romney than the one delegate margin Santorum enjoyed in Oklahoma on Tuesday. But this also sheds light on the role the three other territories -- also with nine delegates each -- might play in this process. In the context of the coming week, the caucuses in Guam, the Northern Marianas, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa could all (if) with one collective voice offset any/most of the gains that Santorum or Gingrich could make in Alabama, Kansas and Mississippi. All three of have an element of proportionality. The 25 of Kansas' 40 delegates are proportional. Alabama's allocation method resembles Georgia's and could provide a nice margin for any candidate if they have a Gingrich-in-Georgia type win. In Mississippi, all 37 bound delegates are proportionally allocated. Each candidate - if they clear the delegate threshold -- will receive delegates in these three states.

But those gains may be neutralized by the territories coming up. After all, Guam ain't just Guam. It and the other territories count, too.

...especially if they deliver all of their delegates to one candidate. And the Northern Marianas look to be leaning toward Romney too.


Recent Posts:
The Revenge of Santorum Can't Get to 1144

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: North Dakota

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Massachusetts

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

The Revenge of Santorum Can't Get to 1144

There were a couple of fairly consistent complaints about the model FHQ put together for ABC News to project candidate delegate totals through the end of primary season:

1. What if Gingrich/Santorum drops out and helps Santorum/Gingrich consolidate the conservative vote against Romney?
2. Sure, Gingrich/Santorum can't get to 1144, but FHQ still hasn't really shown how Romney can get there. 

First of all, I think these are fair assessments/concerns of/about the model, and as is the case with anything like this, it always [always] helps to add extra eyes to process. But let me try to flesh out the explanation of the model a bit as a means of addressing the above issues and then have a look at what the terrain is like now that Super Tuesday is out of the way.

Issue #1: A Gingrich/Santorum Drop Out

FHQ will have to admit right off the bat that I thought the folks who responded to the numbers in the Santorum Can't Get to 1144 post by calling the model a fantasy were right on. It is a fantasy. It is a complete fantasy that one candidate will receive exactly one half of the vote across all the remaining states and by virtue of having that same level of support applied to each and every congressional district (where states allocate based on that subunit vote), win all the delegates from those districts. Again, that is not going to happen. But what I tried to do with the second model was to account for the number of candidates who got over the various thresholds in the states to get any delegates at all. That number was set to its lowest possible number: three in states with 15% thresholds and two in states with 20% thresholds. It seems reasonable that if one candidate -- as the model already assumes -- has 50% support that one additional candidate will break that 20% barrier and that two candidates would break the 15% mark in states with such a threshold. 

The model built in the reallocation of delegates not allocated to candidates because they did not meet the threshold. And because that was set to the lowest reasonable number, the model already -- in an indirect way -- assumes that Gingrich or Santorum is getting votes but not a proportionate share of at-large/all delegates. Those are reallocated to the candidates above the threshold. 

Let me illustrate this with an example. We'll call it Kansas. First of all, we'll assume that Rick Santorum receives 50% of the vote in Saturday's caucuses. Furthermore, we'll assume that Mitt Romney only just clears the 20% mark to get any delegates. Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich both split the remaining 30% with neither clearing the 20% mark (We'll assume an even 15%/15% split). The way the model treats this, Santorum would get a majority in each of the four Kansas congressional districts and wins all 12 delegates (3 delegates in each of the four congressional districts). By winning the statewide vote Santorum would also win the three automatic delegates. 

But where the fun comes in is with the 25 at-large delegates. Since only Santorum and Romney cleared 20%, the allocation will not be truly proportional. If it was, Santorum would receive 12 delegates, Romney 5, Gingrich 4 and Paul 4. That is not how it works though. The eight Gingrich/Paul delegates have to be reallocated to the candidate who cleared the 20% threshold. Reallocating those delegates pushes Santorum's total to 18 and Romney's to 7. The final allocation of the Kansas delegates, then is Santorum 33, Romney 7. 

What happens if Newt Gingrich drops out?¹  

I think we can all agree that no matter what, Ron Paul is not going anywhere. He will continue on and likely get anywhere from 10-15% of the vote. That means that Santorum and Romney are splitting roughly 85-90% of the vote (not accounting for uncommitted votes/voters). What happens if, as the model's initial detractors so adamantly claimed, Santorum receives all of the Gingrich support and Romney stays right at that 20% level? Again, we assume that Santorum is already starting out with a base of 15 delegates (12 congressional district delegates and 3 automatic delegates). What we are concerned with are the 25 at-large delegates. Ron Paul performs fairly well in caucuses so let's say he gets 15% of the vote, meaning that Santorum and Romney split the other 85% (Santorum 65%, Romney 20%). In that instance, Santorum claims 19 of the 25 at-large delegates and Romney, the other 6.² 

All that -- a 15% gain in the vote share -- and Santorum just gained one delegate. So the model already kinda sorta assumed a two person race, but even with Gingrich out of the way AND capturing all of his votes does not translate into all that many delegates. That won't make up the difference to get Santorum to 1144. 

In fact, if we plug the new post-Super Tuesday delegate count (97 delegates: 95 from the RNC and 2 additional automatic delegate endorsement) into the model it only gets Santorum to 959. And that's 959 with all the advantages described above. If we, in turn, grant Santorum all of the unbound delegates to this point in the race (198 delegates), he just barely cracks 1144.³

I think we can all concede that that is beyond generous and approaching the "act of God" that the Romney teams was discussing in the context of Santorum's delegate math.

Issue #2: How does Romney get there?

Speaking of Romney, what does his number look like in the same, again, fantasy model? Once we plug in his current RNC delegate count (339) plus his automatic delegate endorsements (19), Romney reaches 1236 delegates. And that's winning half of the vote and claiming winner-take-all delegates in states that allocate winner-take-all based on reaching that plateau either statewide and/or in the congressional districts. But not counting any additional automatic delegate endorsements or any endorsements from caucus states actually allocating unbound delegates somewhere down the line, Romney still has a cushion of about 100 delegates to work with to get to 1144. In other words, we could assume that Romney likely won't get 50% of the vote in Alabama this next week, but expect that if things continue on as is -- with the former Massachusetts governor as a "weak" frontrunner -- that he would/could make up for "losing" those delegates (relative to the model) by gaining automatic delegates and/or delegates from unbound caucus states. Of course, the time in between the former and the latter happening means that it would be later in the process before Romney actually got to 1144. 

Is that a shoo-in? No, but Romney has some cushion with which to work that his counterparts in the race do not.

--
¹ No, Gingrich will not drop out prior to Kansas but bear with me here for the purposes of this exercise.

² Bumping Paul down to the 10% level does not change the allocation. Santorum still receives 19 of the at-large delegates to Romney's 6.

³ With the number of caucus states waning, we quickly are approaching the point at which the unbound total is not going to grow anymore than the three automatic delegates per state (for those that don't bound them). That 198 is and will be a sizable majority of those unbound delegates.


Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: North Dakota

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Massachusetts

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Idaho

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: North Dakota

This is the nineteenth 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.


NORTH DAKOTA

It is likely sufficient to say that to get a sense of how the North Dakota Republican delegate selection/allocation process operates, one can simply look at Iowa, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota and Washington as broad guides. Republicans in the Peace Garden state will similarly hold a non-binding straw poll vote in the precinct caucuses across 47 legislative districts in the state. Again, the straw poll results are non-binding and give us a snapshot of how well each candidate has done among the caucusgoers in attendance. Ultimately, the 28 delegates North Dakota Republicans were apportioned will head to the Tampa convention unbound (but free to endorse). That means that the process is just starting tonight and will not be complete until those delegates are selected at the state convention on March 30-April 1.

There is no party registration in North Dakota, so any registered voter can participate in the caucuses.

North Dakota delegate breakdown:

• 28 total delegates
• 22 at-large delegates
• 3 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

Both the congressional district and at-large delegates will be selected at the state convention. With only one congressional district, the state convention in North Dakota -- unlike Alaska for instance -- doubles as a district convention gathering as well. The Republican national committeeman and Republican national committeewoman -- both automatic delegates -- are also elected at the state convention in presidential election years.

--
UPDATE: As our anonymous commenter has pointed out, district conventions have been going on since January 17 and will continue into March. That, however, is a completely separate vote from the straw poll that is being conducted across the 47 districts across the state today. This does say something about the likely link between the two events though. If FHQ has talk about anything consistently, it is that the snapshot in the straw poll vote does not necessarily reflect the vote in the delegate allocation portion of the meeting. And that is within one meeting. If the two votes are separately the link between the straw poll vote and the delegate selection (through the initial district-level conventions) is even more tenuous.

--
UPDATE (3/30/12): The delegate selection process will be complete with the selection of congressional district and at-large delegates at the March 30-April 1 convention in the Peace Garden state. Those delegates are technically unbound, but it will be up to the state party, old-fashioned press reporting or the selected delegates themselves revealing who they prefer. Rick Santorum won the March 6 straw poll and this weekend may be a better indicator of where the former Pennsylvania senator stands in this race than the Wisconsin primary on Tuesday. If he performs up to or overperforms his straw poll performance in the final delegate count in North Dakota, then nothing really changes. If, however, Santorum underperforms in the delegate count compared to his straw poll showing, then it will be revealing about his organization and perhaps the emerging inevitability argument in this Republican nomination race.

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

Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Massachusetts

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Idaho

Goodbye Idaho Presidential Primary

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Massachusetts

This is the eighteenth 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.


MASSACHUSETTS

Ho-hum.

Following Idaho, the Massachusetts Republican Party method of delegate appears quite pedestrian. In fact, the Massachusetts Republican Party method of delegate allocation is more the Massachusetts commonwealth method of allocation as the formula is broadly defined in the Massachusetts General Laws.

Now, this is not to suggest that the state party has no say in the matter. As FHQ argued in the New Hampshire discussion, the state party always has the final say on these matters. If there is a conflict between state law and what the state party wants in terms of delegate allocation, the courts typically square the issue; yielding to the desires of the party. In this instance, Bay state Republicans allocate their apportioned delegates in proportion to the vote share each candidate receives in the statewide election. The Massachusetts Republican Party has added the caveat that only candidates over the 15% mark in that statewide vote are eligible for a portion of the delegates.

What that means is that Massachusetts is essentially New Hampshire, but with a slightly higher minimum threshold for receiving delegates (15% as opposed to 10% in New Hampshire). This is applied across the entire delegation regardless of the at-large or congressional district distinction.

Massachusetts delegate breakdown:

• 41 total delegates
• 11 at-large delegates
• 27 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates 

The 38 at-large and congressional district delegates are allocated to candidates over 15% of the vote proportionate to their share of the statewide election. The remaining three automatic delegates are unbound and can endorse when and if they choose to do so.


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

Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Idaho

Goodbye Idaho Presidential Primary

Santorum Can't Get to 1144

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