Thursday, June 16, 2016

The Electoral College Map (6/16/16)




Polling Quick Hits:
California:
No, the recent survey of the Golden state from Survey Monkey and the LA Times (via Pollster) did not do anything but reinforce the fact that California is still reliably blue at the moment. And given the consistency of even the early state-level polling, that is not likely to change.

Iowa:
Over in first in the nation territory, the first new polling in Iowa since January continued to show a close race. The range established in the scant survey work thus far in the Hawkeye state is from tied to Clinton +8 and this PPP poll falls right in between. However, the bottom line in Iowa is that for a battleground state there just is not a lot of 2016 data with which to work. However, this poll displaces the tied poll as the most recent in the FHQ graduated weighed average for Iowa and widens the margin in Clinton's direction enough to pull it off the Watch List. Iowa is no longer within a percentage point of shifting across the partisan line into the Toss Up Trump category.

Virginia:
The picture in the Old Dominion is not significantly different from Iowa. The very earliest 2016 polls in Virginia demonstrate a bit more distance between Clinton and Trump than the more recent polling conducted in the time since both virtually wrapped up their respective nominations. That set of polls shows a state consistently in Clinton's column but one firmly in the Toss Up area. The newly released PPP survey did little to change that.

It is worth mentioning that these state-level polls -- especially those in traditionally competitive states -- have not shown the growth in Clinton's lead as in the national polling. The former secretary's consolidating of the Democratic base is evident there, but has not clearly stretched to the state level. But it is still early and polling has been pretty light in the post-clinch period of the race.



NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2016 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.


The Electoral College Spectrum1
HI-42
(7)
WA-12
(158)
NH-4
(245)
GA-16
(164)
SD-3
(53)
VT-3
(10)
MN-10
(168)
PA-20
(265)
MS-6
(148)
ND-3
(50)
MD-10
(20)
WI-10
(178)
VA-133
(278/273)
UT-6
(142)
NE-5
(47)
RI-4
(24)
NJ-14
(192)
OR-7
(285/260)
AK-3
(136)
AL-9
(42)
MA-11
(35)
NV-6
(198)
FL-29
(314/253)
IN-11
(133)
KY-8
(33)
IL-20
(55)
MI-16
(214)
IA-6
(320/224)
SC-9
(122)
AR-6
(25)
NY-29
(84)
NM-5
(219)
OH-18
(338/218)
TN-11
(113)
WV-5
(19)
DE-3
(87)
CT-7
(226)
AZ-11
(349/200)
MT-3
(102)
ID-4
(14)
CA-55
(142)
CO-9
(235)
NC-15
(364/189)
TX-38
(99)
OK-7
(10)
ME-4
(146)
KS-6
(241)
MO-10
(174)
LA-8
(61)
WY-3
(3)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.

2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Virginia (all Clinton's toss up states plus Virginia), he would have 273 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics.


To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College.

3 Virginia
 is the state where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.



NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Clinton and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.

The Watch List loses Iowa from the previous (6/15/16) update.


The Watch List1
State
Switch
Alaska
from Lean Trump
to Toss Up Trump
Missouri
from Toss Up Trump
to Toss Up Clinton
New Hampshire
from Lean Clinton
to Toss Up Clinton
New Jersey
from Strong Clinton
to Lean Clinton
Pennsylvania
from Toss Up Clinton
to Lean Clinton
Tennessee
from Lean Trump
to Strong Trump
Virginia
from Toss Up Clinton
to Lean Clinton
Wisconsin
from Strong Clinton
to Lean Clinton
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.


Wednesday, June 15, 2016

The Electoral College Map (6/15/16)




Polling Quick Hits:
Wisconsin:
It is not terribly instructive to focus on just one poll. Some chose to focus on the implications of the switch from registered to likely voters in the Marquette Law School survey of the Badger state (Clinton counterintuitively gained). However, FHQ was struck by the fact that regardless of the screen, this is only the second 2016 poll in the state to show Clinton up by anything other than double digits. That actually narrowed the gap -- ever so slightly -- between Clinton and Trump, drawing Wisconsin onto the Watch List below. It is still within the Strong Clinton category (>10 percent), but the FHQ average inched closer to the Lean Clinton group where the state has resided for much of the last two cycles.

Of course, it is still early and there have still only been a handful of polls conducted in the state in 2016. But thus far it appears as if Wisconsin has shifted a little in the direction of the Democrats which is consistent with the modest average uniform swing gleaned from state-level polling.


NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2016 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.


The Electoral College Spectrum1
HI-42
(7)
WA-12
(158)
NH-4
(245)
GA-16
(164)
SD-3
(53)
VT-3
(10)
MN-10
(168)
PA-20
(265)
MS-6
(148)
ND-3
(50)
MD-10
(20)
WI-10
(178)
VA-133
(278/273)
UT-6
(142)
NE-5
(47)
RI-4
(24)
NJ-14
(192)
OR-7
(285/260)
AK-3
(136)
AL-9
(42)
MA-11
(35)
NV-6
(198)
FL-29
(314/253)
IN-11
(133)
KY-8
(33)
IL-20
(55)
MI-16
(214)
OH-18
(332/224)
SC-9
(122)
AR-6
(25)
NY-29
(84)
NM-5
(219)
AZ-11
(343/206)
TN-11
(113)
WV-5
(19)
DE-3
(87)
CT-7
(226)
NC-15
(358/195)
MT-3
(102)
ID-4
(14)
CA-55
(142)
CO-9
(235)
IA-6
(364/180)
TX-38
(99)
OK-7
(10)
ME-4
(146)
KS-6
(241)
MO-10
(174)
LA-8
(61)
WY-3
(3)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.

2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Virginia (all Clinton's toss up states plus Virginia), he would have 273 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics.


To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College.

3 Virginia
 is the state where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.



NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Clinton and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.


The Watch List adds Wisconsin to the previous (6/14/16) update.

The Watch List1
State
Switch
Alaska
from Lean Trump
to Toss Up Trump
Iowa
from Toss Up Clinton
to Toss Up Trump
Missouri
from Toss Up Trump
to Toss Up Clinton
New Hampshire
from Lean Clinton
to Toss Up Clinton
New Jersey
from Strong Clinton
to Lean Clinton
Pennsylvania
from Toss Up Clinton
to Lean Clinton
Tennessee
from Lean Trump
to Strong Trump
Virginia
from Toss Up Clinton
to Lean Clinton
Wisconsin
from Strong Clinton
to Lean Clinton
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (6/14/16)

The Electoral College Map (6/13/16)

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: SOUTH DAKOTA


Follow FHQ on TwitterGoogle+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

The Electoral College Map (6/14/16)




Polling Quick Hits:
Changes (June 14)
StateBeforeAfter
KansasStrong TrumpLean Clinton
Kansas:
The Sunflower state is one of those states that lacked polling data in the first iteration of the FHQ electoral college projection. After adjusting the 2012 data with the average swing given the available polling in 2016, Kansas was a comfortable Trump state. The margin was nearly 20 percentage points. However, the outlook changed for Kansas with the addition of the recent Zogby/Kansas Health Foundation survey showing Clinton in the lead.

The take home message from that poll is less that Clinton is ahead, but rather that a sizable chunk of the survey respondents -- a little more than one-fifth -- in a reliably red state are on the fence. And while Clinton's share in the survey is running about 5 points better than where Obama ended up in 2012, Trump's share lags well back of Romney's vote share in Kansas four years ago. Over 20 points. The bulk of that 20 percent has shifted from the Republican column to the undecided column.

That makes this seem more than a little like the Kansas Senate race from 2014. Independent Greg Orman displaced the Democratic candidate and was neck and neck with incumbent Pat Roberts (R) in the polling leading into the election day. Roberts ended up with a double digit win as most Republicans came home.

That situation may be similar to the current presidential race in the Sunflower state. However, it could also be that Kansas joins Utah as a state that is seemingly shifting away from the presumptive Republican nominee (but not necessarily toward Secretary Clinton).

Yes, it is still early, but additional polls in not only Kansas but across the traditionally and most reliably red states would help to fill out this picture.

--
One omission from the post rolling out the 2016 projection that bears mentioning is that the picture in the aggregated state polls is a little rosier for Clinton than the national polls are. The state polls currently have Clinton hovering in the area of Obama 2008 in the electoral college whereas the national polls have the former Secretary ahead by a margin at the moment that is more comparable to where President Obama ended up relative to Romney on election day 2012. Both measures -- national and (aggregated) state polls -- are pointing in the same direction.



NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2016 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.


The Electoral College Spectrum1
HI-42
(7)
WA-12
(158)
NH-4
(245)
GA-16
(164)
SD-3
(53)
VT-3
(10)
MN-10
(168)
PA-20
(265)
MS-6
(148)
ND-3
(50)
MD-10
(20)
WI-10
(178)
VA-133
(278/273)
UT-6
(142)
NE-5
(47)
RI-4
(24)
NJ-14
(192)
OR-7
(285/260)
AK-3
(136)
AL-9
(42)
MA-11
(35)
NV-6
(198)
FL-29
(314/253)
IN-11
(133)
KY-8
(33)
IL-20
(55)
MI-16
(214)
OH-18
(332/224)
SC-9
(122)
AR-6
(25)
NY-29
(84)
NM-5
(219)
AZ-11
(343/206)
TN-11
(113)
WV-5
(19)
DE-3
(87)
CT-7
(226)
NC-15
(358/195)
MT-3
(102)
ID-4
(14)
CA-55
(142)
CO-9
(235)
IA-6
(364/180)
TX-38
(99)
OK-7
(10)
ME-4
(146)
KS-6
(241)
MO-10
(174)
LA-8
(61)
WY-3
(3)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.

2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Virginia (all Clinton's toss up states plus Virginia), he would have 273 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics.


To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College.

3 Virginia
 is the state where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.



NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Clinton and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.


The Watch List remains unchanged from the previous (6/13/16) update.

The Watch List1
State
Switch
Alaska
from Lean Trump
to Toss Up Trump
Iowa
from Toss Up Clinton
to Toss Up Trump
Missouri
from Toss Up Trump
to Toss Up Clinton
New Hampshire
from Lean Clinton
to Toss Up Clinton
New Jersey
from Strong Clinton
to Lean Clinton
Pennsylvania
from Toss Up Clinton
to Lean Clinton
Tennessee
from Lean Trump
to Strong Trump
Virginia
from Toss Up Clinton
to Lean Clinton
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (6/13/16)

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: SOUTH DAKOTA

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: NEW MEXICO


Follow FHQ on TwitterGoogle+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Monday, June 13, 2016

The Electoral College Map (6/13/16)

Latest Update

And so it begins.



While primary season 2016 is set to close tomorrow, the transition to the general election is already well underway. That was true in early May when Donald Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee and even more so last week when Hillary Clinton went over the top, clinching the distinction on the Democratic side. Knowing the identities of the two nominees tends to bring with it some level of certainty.

Still, that certainty, five months out from election day in November, is counterbalanced by a pre-convention environment in which both parties continue in the process of consolidating partisans behind their newly minted standard bearers. In other words, it is early.

Early though it may be, there is enough polling data out there both nationally and at the state level to get a sense of where a Clinton-Trump race is even in its infancy. The answer is -- and again there are plenty of caveats -- that the 2016 race for the White House at this point in mid-June looks similar to 2008. Add together the 2012 Obama states plus North Carolina and replace Indiana (2008) with Arizona and that is basically where things stand.

The problem is that there just is not a whole lot of polling data at the moment (at the state level).1 There is enough to get a picture of the state of the race, but not a sufficient enough amount to inspire a high level of confidence, statistical or otherwise. However, the silver lining is that the bulk of the polling that has been conducted in 2016 has been clustered in the states that have in recent cycles been more competitive. Where data is missing is in the least historically competitive states; particularly those that have been reliably red over time.

This is less true in traditionally Democratic states. A number of those blue states like California and New York had later primaries (or primaries during the back half of the primary calendar) that saw not only survey questions about the increasingly clear nomination races, but increasing queries about hypothetical general election match ups. By comparison, there have been more 2016 polls conducted in Maryland (three) than in Alabama (zero) or Texas (zero), for instance.

Colorado and Nevada stand as two notable exceptions to this rule. Both have voted with the winner of the last four presidential elections, yet neither has been polled during 2016. Each holds a caucus rather than a primary, and Colorado Republicans did not even hold a presidential preference vote that would have drawn pollsters into the state to survey the state of the Republican nomination race much less the general election. Meanwhile, Nevada is just plain tough to poll regardless of the phase of the presidential election.

Again, it is early. As election day draws near, the release of new polling data will intensify. That will either reinforce the general outlook here or fundamentally shift it. The one factor that was unique to the general election phase of the 2012 presidential election was that it -- the election itself -- was a constant. The same 332-206 electoral vote tally that was there in July was there on election day in November.2 And it never changed. In the FHQ projections, the Obama and Romney coalitions of states never lost nor gained states.

That is atypical. Bush led Gore early in the general election phase in 2000 but saw that lead shrink over time. Obama was behind McCain in 2008 as primary season came to a close, but won a fairly sweeping victory in November. Unlike those two cycles, 2004 was not an open seat election. But even though there was an incumbent involved, as in 2012, there was some volatility in a close race. In other words, occasionally a state would change sides and alter the outlook of the race in the process. 2012, by comparison was never really that (2004) close. It offered a much more consistent picture.

One of the biggest questions as this 2016 cycle heads into the general election is whether it fits the mold of a typical open seat election (more volatile in the polls) or if an increasingly polarized environment serves as a set of moorings to which most states are anchored (regardless of whether an election involves an incumbent). If it is the former, then the expectation is that the above map will change and perhaps drastically so. However, if it is the latter, then there may be very little change except at the margins. There are now only two states that are close to crossing the partisan line over into the opposite candidate's camp (see Watch List below).



NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2016 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.



The Electoral College Spectrum1
HI-42
(7)
WA-12
(158)
PA-20
(259)
MS-6
(154)
ND-3
(56)
VT-3
(10)
MN-10
(168)
VA-133
(272/279)
UT-6
(148)
KS-6
(53)
MD-10
(20)
WI-10
(178)
OR-7
(279/266)
AK-3
(142)
NE-5
(47)
RI-4
(24)
NJ-14
(192)
FL-29
(308/259)
IN-11
(139)
AL-9
(42)
MA-11
(35)
NV-6
(198)
OH-18
(326/230)
SC-9
(128)
KY-8
(33)
IL-20
(55)
MI-16
(214)
AZ-11
(337/212)
TN-11
(119)
AR-6
(25)
NY-29
(84)
NM-5
(219)
NC-15
(352/201)
MT-3
(108)
WV-5
(19)
DE-3
(87)
CT-7
(226)
IA-6
(358/186)
TX-38
(105)
ID-4
(14)
CA-55
(142)
CO-9
(235)
MO-10
(180)
LA-8
(67)
OK-7
(10)
ME-4
(146)
NH-4
(239)
GA-16
(170)
SD-3
(59)
WY-3
(3)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.

2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Virginia (all Clinton's toss up states plus Virginia), he would have 279 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics.


To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College.

3 Virginia
 is the state where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.


Though there is a link above to a description of the methodology behind the FHQ graduated weighted average, and in addition, a tutorial on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum immediately above (see footnote #1 in the Spectrum table), there is one other operational caveat that warrants explanation. The basic premise of the Spectrum is as a simple, graphical depiction of the rank ordering of states from most Democratic on one end to most Republican on the other.

In years past, FHQ has substituted an average of past election results for states in which there was no polling. [As was mentioned above, these tend to be the least competitive states.] That was not an issue in 2008. There was a great deal of polling that cycle, and it hit virtually every state. 2012 was different and 2016 is shaping up in a similar fashion. Both had or have a lack of across the board polling coverage.

Rather than using past results to fill in those blanks, FHQ will take a uniform swing approach. That is, the ordering of states will remain mostly constant and the electorate will shift in a mostly uniform pattern across most states from one election cycle to the next. If one makes that assumption, that does augur against using past results. Such a method may misplace states on the Spectrum; in the rank ordering.

FHQ instead has established an average swing from 2012 to 2016 using the available state-level polling data. The polling-based averages in states where polling data is publicly available are subtracted from the 2012 results to compute a state-specific swing. An average of those swings is then added to/subtracted from the 2012 results to arrive at a tentative, temporary projection.

Utah has thus far seen an over 40 point swing away from the Republican candidate 2012 to 2016. It is a significant outlier that nearly doubles the average swing. FHQ has made the decision to drop the Utah swing from the swing average equation. That leaves an average swing toward the Democrats and away from the Republicans of about 1.75 points.

None of this -- the change in methodology for dealing with states with no polling or the inclusiveness of the swing average -- may end up being all that consequential in the end. Again, the states most often affected are states that routinely fall in one party's column or the other's. However, Colorado and Nevada are still worth watching. Both may or may not be overly tilted in Clinton's direction at the moment. The best remedy will be polling which will presumably come at some point in those states.



NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Clinton and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.



The Watch List1
State
Switch
Alaska
from Lean Trump
to Toss Up Trump
Iowa
from Toss Up Clinton
to Toss Up Trump
Missouri
from Toss Up Trump
to Toss Up Clinton
New Hampshire
from Lean Clinton
to Toss Up Clinton
New Jersey
from Strong Clinton
to Lean Clinton
Pennsylvania
from Toss Up Clinton
to Lean Clinton
Tennessee
from Lean Trump
to Strong Trump
Virginia
from Toss Up Clinton
to Lean Clinton
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

--
1 The data is more robust at the national level.

2 Though the initial FHQ projection was released in mid-July, we have subsequently backdated the projections to the end of primary season in June. The same (lack of a) trend held then as well. The picture through the lens of the electoral college was the same.


Recent Posts:
2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: SOUTH DAKOTA

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: NEW MEXICO

More Past Primary Calendar Revisionism


Follow FHQ on TwitterGoogle+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Tuesday, June 7, 2016

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: SOUTH DAKOTA

This is part fifty-three of a series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation rules by state. The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2016 -- especially relative to 2012 -- in order to gauge the potential impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. For this cycle the RNC recalibrated its rules, cutting the proportionality window in half (March 1-14), but tightening its definition of proportionality as well. While those alterations will trigger subtle changes in reaction at the state level, other rules changes -- particularly the new binding requirement placed on state parties -- will be more noticeable. 

SOUTH DAKOTA

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

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

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


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


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


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


--
State allocation rules are archived here.


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


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

More Past Primary Calendar Revisionism

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: NEW JERSEY

Follow FHQ on TwitterGoogle+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.