This is part thirty-nine of a series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation rules by state. The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2016 -- especially relative to 2012 -- in order to gauge the potential impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. For this cycle the RNC recalibrated its rules, cutting the proportionality window in half (March 1-14), but tightening its definition of proportionality as well. While those alterations will trigger subtle changes in reaction at the state level, other rules changes -- particularly the new binding requirement placed on state parties -- will be more noticeable.
CONNECTICUT
Election type: primary
Date: April 26
Number of delegates: 28 [10 at-large, 15 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: at-large/automatic delegates: proportional
congressional district delegates: winner-take-most/winner-take-all by congressional district
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 20% (statewide, for at-large/automatic delegates)
2012: winner-take-most primary
--
Changes since 2012
Compared the changes made to the Connecticut Republican Party delegate allocation method from 2008-12, the alterations made for the 2016 cycle are minor bordering on non-existent.
Despite seeing Democrats in the Nutmeg state government in 2011 move the presidential primary back from early February 2008 to late April 2012, Connecticut Republicans pushed forward with a plan to shift from a truly winner-take-all allocation plan to a more proportional method. That is "despite" since the primary moved to a later date, after the proportionality window had closed. In other words, the change was not necessary to comply with Republican National Committee rules for 2012. That plan called for both a winner-take-all element on the congressional district level and a proportional component statewide (if no candidate received a majority of the vote).
But that was 2012, and those were substantial changes. For 2016, the Connecticut Republican Party has only slightly tinkered with its rules.
The one big change?
A new section has empowered the state party chairman to fill any delegate slots awarded to the uncommitted option on the ballot (assuming "uncommitted" clears the qualifying threshold). While new, Section 17.H is more contingency planning than anything else; an insurance policy should "uncommitted" qualify.
Thresholds
Given scant changes, the ground rules are largely the same for Connecticut Republicans in 2016 as they were in 2012. The only difference is that the competitive phase of the race will stretch to late April on the calendar, unlike 2012. As the rules are the same, there is a qualifying threshold, but only under certain conditions. First, a candidate must receive at least 20 percent of the vote in order to qualify for any delegates in the Connecticut primary. But reaching that barrier only qualifies a candidate for a share of the states 13 at-large and automatic delegates. That is just a proportional share of a little less than half of the total number of delegates apportioned state Republicans by the RNC.
However, that proportional allocation of that group of delegates only holds if no one candidate wins a majority of the statewide vote. In the event that one candidate take a majority statewide, that candidate would be allocated all 13 at-large and automatic delegates.
There is, then, a qualifying threshold, but it is superseded by the winner-take-all trigger if a candidate wins more than 50 percent of the statewide vote. Additionally, there is no rule prohibiting the backdoor winner-take-all allocation of all 13 at-large and automatic delegates should only one candidate surpass the 20 percent qualifying threshold (given the equation described above and presumably assuming a large field of candidates).
Delegate allocation (at-large and automatic delegates)
The above thresholds affect just the allocation of the 13 at-large and automatic delegates. Assuming a proportional allocation of those delegates -- no one receives a majority of the vote statewide -- then the allocation equation divides each candidates share of the statewide vote by the total qualifying vote (just those over 20% rather than the total number of votes cast).
Fractional delegates from that calculation would be rounded to the nearest whole number. Those .5 and above would be round up and those below .5 would be rounded down.
Should there be an unallocated delegate due to rounding, the Connecticut Republican Party bylaws call for that slot to go to the winner of the statewide vote. Interestingly, there is no provision in the rules dealing with a rounding result that leads to an overallocation of delegates. There is no description laying out the procedure for removing the superfluous delegate from a particular candidate's total.
Delegate allocation (congressional district delegates)
Matters are simpler with regard to the allocation of the congressional district delegates. Like Wisconsin or South Carolina before it, Connecticut Republicans allocate all three delegates to the plurality winner of a congressional district. There are no thresholds involved. A candidate need not win 20% of the vote to qualify for those three delegates. Having 19 percent of the vote, for example, is sufficient to claim all three congressional district delegates so long as that is the highest vote share in a given district. With a later primary and a winnowed field, however, such a winning share becomes less likely.
Binding
At-large and automatic delegates are bound to the majority winner statewide or to their respective candidates under a proportional allocation through the first ballot at the national convention. It is less clear whether congressional district delegates are bound for the same duration. The only mention of how long delegates are bound is in the section of the rules detailing the allocation of the at-large delegates (and only refers to "delegate[s]"). When the rules shift into a discussion of the allocation of congressional district delegates in a subsequent section, there is no provision detailing the length of the bond.
This sounds more provocative than it is in practice. And that is due to the way that delegates are selected. Connecticut is one of the states that chooses delegates from slates submitted by the various campaigns. If a candidate has filed a full slate of delegates and there is a majority winner statewide who also sweeps the congressional districts then the mystery is gone. There really is no selection so much as all the delegate slots are filled by the winner's slate.
There is only a choice in so much as there is 1) a proportional allocation in which delegates are being pulled from multiple slates or 2) a candidate has either filed too few or no delegates with the state party. The candidates and their campaigns choose the slates, but the state party at its May state central committee meeting selects which delegates from those slates fill the candidates' allocated slots. Unlike the majority of states where candidates have no direct influence over the delegate selection process, Connecticut Republicans allow for candidate input on the matter. Since the candidates have input in the matter, their delegates are likely to be with them on the first ballot (and beyond).
--
State allocation rules are archived here.
--
Showing posts with label winner-take-most rules. Show all posts
Showing posts with label winner-take-most rules. Show all posts
Monday, April 18, 2016
Monday, March 14, 2016
2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: MISSOURI
This is part thirty-one 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.
MISSOURI
Election type: primary
Date: March 15
Number of delegates: 52 [25 at-large, 24 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: winner-take-most/winner-take-all by congressional district (with majority winner-take-all trigger statewide for all of the delegates)
Threshold to qualify for delegates: n/a
2012: caucus
--
Changes since 2012
Change perhaps seemed inevitable in Missouri for 2016. Following a cycle in which the state legislature could not agree on legislation to shift back the date of the presidential primary in the Show-Me state, the Missouri presidential primary is back and back in compliance with national party rules on timing.
Five years ago, the Missouri legislature failed to move the primary out of February. While February primaries were compliant under both national parties' rules in 2008, they were not in 2012. This forced a lot of states to schedule later primaries. Missouri was not one of those states. In fact, the Republican-controlled Missouri legislature could not only not agree on moving the primary, it also could not agree on canceling it even after the Missouri Republican Party had opted out of the non-compliant, state-funded primary to hold mid-March caucuses to avoid losing delegates to the national convention.
But the Missouri legislature righted the primary ship in 2014, shifting the primary back to a point on the calendar comparable to the caucuses four years ago. The move pushed the primary far enough back on the calendar that the Missouri Republican Party was eligible revert to allocating all of the state's delegates to the statewide winner (as had been the case prior to 2012). However, the party opted to replace the winner-take-all plan with a winner-take-most delegate allocation plan.
However, that plan has a twist. Rather than a standard winner-take-all by congressional district plan, the Missouri Republican Party has reweighted the distribution of congressional district delegates. Most states allocate three delegates per congressional district. That is a number that is derived from the RNC apportionment formula. Each state is apportioned three delegates per congressional district, and most states that consider the congressional district vote in the allocation formula allocate those three delegates in various ways.
In Missouri, though, the winner of a congressional district will be allocated five delegates in 2016. That includes the regular three congressional district delegates, but also two of the at-large delegates. Basically, the party has raided the at-large pool to increase the power that each of the congressional districts carry in the overall allocation. That shifts 16 delegates from the at-large pool into the congressional district pool for the purposes of allocation.1
On the surface, all this means is that the congressional district wins carry a bit more weight in Missouri than in other states and that the at-large pool is decreased from 25 (plus the three automatic delegates) to 9 (plus the three automatic delegates).
Finally, the Missouri Republican Party has added as part of their plan a winner-take-all trigger. If any candidate wins a majority statewide, then that candidate is entitled to all 52 delegates at stake in the Show-Me state.
Delegate allocation (at-large and automatic delegates)
Win statewide and a candidate wins the 12 at-large and automatic delegates.
Delegate allocation (congressional district delegates)
A win in a congressional district means a candidate wins all five delegates from that district.
There is the winner-take-all trigger that could allocate all the delegates -- at-large, congressional district or otherwise -- to a majority statewide winner.
Binding
Delegates are bound to the candidates they have been allocated on the first ballot at the national convention or until released if a candidate withdraws before the the convention.
Missouri is not a state where candidates have clear input on who their delegates are. It requires organizing delegate candidates to stand for election in the caucus/convention process that culminates with congressional district conventions on April 30 and the state convention on May 20-21.
--
State allocation rules are archived here.
--
1 While two at-large delegates will be allocated in each of the congressional districts in Missouri, they will still be selected at the late May state convention with the other at-large delegates.
--
MISSOURI
Election type: primary
Date: March 15
Number of delegates: 52 [25 at-large, 24 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: winner-take-most/winner-take-all by congressional district (with majority winner-take-all trigger statewide for all of the delegates)
Threshold to qualify for delegates: n/a
2012: caucus
--
Changes since 2012
Change perhaps seemed inevitable in Missouri for 2016. Following a cycle in which the state legislature could not agree on legislation to shift back the date of the presidential primary in the Show-Me state, the Missouri presidential primary is back and back in compliance with national party rules on timing.
Five years ago, the Missouri legislature failed to move the primary out of February. While February primaries were compliant under both national parties' rules in 2008, they were not in 2012. This forced a lot of states to schedule later primaries. Missouri was not one of those states. In fact, the Republican-controlled Missouri legislature could not only not agree on moving the primary, it also could not agree on canceling it even after the Missouri Republican Party had opted out of the non-compliant, state-funded primary to hold mid-March caucuses to avoid losing delegates to the national convention.
But the Missouri legislature righted the primary ship in 2014, shifting the primary back to a point on the calendar comparable to the caucuses four years ago. The move pushed the primary far enough back on the calendar that the Missouri Republican Party was eligible revert to allocating all of the state's delegates to the statewide winner (as had been the case prior to 2012). However, the party opted to replace the winner-take-all plan with a winner-take-most delegate allocation plan.
However, that plan has a twist. Rather than a standard winner-take-all by congressional district plan, the Missouri Republican Party has reweighted the distribution of congressional district delegates. Most states allocate three delegates per congressional district. That is a number that is derived from the RNC apportionment formula. Each state is apportioned three delegates per congressional district, and most states that consider the congressional district vote in the allocation formula allocate those three delegates in various ways.
In Missouri, though, the winner of a congressional district will be allocated five delegates in 2016. That includes the regular three congressional district delegates, but also two of the at-large delegates. Basically, the party has raided the at-large pool to increase the power that each of the congressional districts carry in the overall allocation. That shifts 16 delegates from the at-large pool into the congressional district pool for the purposes of allocation.1
On the surface, all this means is that the congressional district wins carry a bit more weight in Missouri than in other states and that the at-large pool is decreased from 25 (plus the three automatic delegates) to 9 (plus the three automatic delegates).
Finally, the Missouri Republican Party has added as part of their plan a winner-take-all trigger. If any candidate wins a majority statewide, then that candidate is entitled to all 52 delegates at stake in the Show-Me state.
Delegate allocation (at-large and automatic delegates)
Win statewide and a candidate wins the 12 at-large and automatic delegates.
Delegate allocation (congressional district delegates)
A win in a congressional district means a candidate wins all five delegates from that district.
There is the winner-take-all trigger that could allocate all the delegates -- at-large, congressional district or otherwise -- to a majority statewide winner.
Binding
Delegates are bound to the candidates they have been allocated on the first ballot at the national convention or until released if a candidate withdraws before the the convention.
Missouri is not a state where candidates have clear input on who their delegates are. It requires organizing delegate candidates to stand for election in the caucus/convention process that culminates with congressional district conventions on April 30 and the state convention on May 20-21.
--
State allocation rules are archived here.
--
1 While two at-large delegates will be allocated in each of the congressional districts in Missouri, they will still be selected at the late May state convention with the other at-large delegates.
--
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: SOUTH CAROLINA
This is part 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 CAROLINA
Election type: primary
Date: February 20
Number of delegates: 50 [26 at-large, 21 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: winner-take-most/winner-take-all by congressional district
Threshold to qualify for delegates: n/a
2012: winner-take-most/winner-take-all by congressional district
--
South Carolina is unique among its carve-out state brethren. Sure, the presidential primary in the Palmetto state is First in the South, but the South Carolina primary represents the lone exception to the proportional delegate allocation that the other three states -- Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada -- use. Actually, that distinction means South Carolina is the only non-proportional state (at least by the Republican National Committee's standards) before March 15 opens the post-proportionlity period of the 2016 presidential primary calendar.
The other three carve-out states utilize an allocation system that proportionally allocates their respective shares of delegates based on the statewide result of the primary/caucus. South Carolina, on the other hand, is a state where the distinction between at-large and congressional district delegates matters. The key here is that in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, the statewide vote affects a pool of delegates that includes at-large, congressional district and sometimes automatic delegates. In South Carolina the pool is separated. The statewide vote dictates who wins the 29 at-large and automatic delegates, and the results in the state's seven congressional districts directs the allocation of each district's respective three delegates.
If a candidate wins the statewide vote, that candidate claims all 29 delegates. If a candidate receives a plurality in one of the seven congressional districts, that candidate is awarded all three delegates from that district.
A statewide win means that the resulting allocation of delegates is weighted in favor of the winner. Said candidate would not only claim over half of the available delegates (29 out of 50), but would also be well-positioned on the congressional district level as well. Winning statewide tends to but does not necessarily mean doing well in the congressional district vote. While Newt Gingrich won South Carolina in 2012, he lost one congressional district and its two delegates to Mitt Romney. Similarly, John McCain won South Carolina in 2008, but split the then six congressional district with Mike Huckabee, yielding the former Arkansas governor 6 delegates.
In both cases, the winner left the South Carolina primary with at least a three to one delegate advantage over the next closest competitor. And in Gingrich's case, it was more than 10:1.
The South Carolina Republican allocation method, then, is built to advantage the winner more than a strictly proportional method of allocation, but less than a strictly winner-take-all scheme. It should be noted however, if a candidate wins statewide and in each of the seven congressional districts, then South Carolina essentially becomes a winner-take-all state.
--
One additional area where there is some observed variation between states concerns how and how long delegates are bound to particular candidates at the national convention. The South Carolina Republican version of this has the delegates voting for the statewide winner or the winner of the congressional district on the first ballot only. If that candidate/those candidates is/are not nominated then those delegates are bound to the second or third place finisher statewide or at the congressional district level. If none of those three are nominated, then the delegates are unbound.
Presumably, the system works the same way for candidates who may have won South Carolina delegates, but who subsequently withdraw from the race. Those candidates are less likely -- obviously -- to have their name placed in nomination at the convention in Cleveland. But should a winning candidate withdraw, then their delegates are then bound to the second place finisher. If that candidate drops out, then the delegates go to the third top vote-getter. In both cases, that delegate transference is dependent upon the candidate ultimately being nominated. If not, then those delegates will be unbound free agents.
--
State allocation rules are archived here.
SOUTH CAROLINA
Election type: primary
Date: February 20
Number of delegates: 50 [26 at-large, 21 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: winner-take-most/winner-take-all by congressional district
Threshold to qualify for delegates: n/a
2012: winner-take-most/winner-take-all by congressional district
--
South Carolina is unique among its carve-out state brethren. Sure, the presidential primary in the Palmetto state is First in the South, but the South Carolina primary represents the lone exception to the proportional delegate allocation that the other three states -- Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada -- use. Actually, that distinction means South Carolina is the only non-proportional state (at least by the Republican National Committee's standards) before March 15 opens the post-proportionlity period of the 2016 presidential primary calendar.
The other three carve-out states utilize an allocation system that proportionally allocates their respective shares of delegates based on the statewide result of the primary/caucus. South Carolina, on the other hand, is a state where the distinction between at-large and congressional district delegates matters. The key here is that in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, the statewide vote affects a pool of delegates that includes at-large, congressional district and sometimes automatic delegates. In South Carolina the pool is separated. The statewide vote dictates who wins the 29 at-large and automatic delegates, and the results in the state's seven congressional districts directs the allocation of each district's respective three delegates.
If a candidate wins the statewide vote, that candidate claims all 29 delegates. If a candidate receives a plurality in one of the seven congressional districts, that candidate is awarded all three delegates from that district.
A statewide win means that the resulting allocation of delegates is weighted in favor of the winner. Said candidate would not only claim over half of the available delegates (29 out of 50), but would also be well-positioned on the congressional district level as well. Winning statewide tends to but does not necessarily mean doing well in the congressional district vote. While Newt Gingrich won South Carolina in 2012, he lost one congressional district and its two delegates to Mitt Romney. Similarly, John McCain won South Carolina in 2008, but split the then six congressional district with Mike Huckabee, yielding the former Arkansas governor 6 delegates.
In both cases, the winner left the South Carolina primary with at least a three to one delegate advantage over the next closest competitor. And in Gingrich's case, it was more than 10:1.
The South Carolina Republican allocation method, then, is built to advantage the winner more than a strictly proportional method of allocation, but less than a strictly winner-take-all scheme. It should be noted however, if a candidate wins statewide and in each of the seven congressional districts, then South Carolina essentially becomes a winner-take-all state.
--
One additional area where there is some observed variation between states concerns how and how long delegates are bound to particular candidates at the national convention. The South Carolina Republican version of this has the delegates voting for the statewide winner or the winner of the congressional district on the first ballot only. If that candidate/those candidates is/are not nominated then those delegates are bound to the second or third place finisher statewide or at the congressional district level. If none of those three are nominated, then the delegates are unbound.
Presumably, the system works the same way for candidates who may have won South Carolina delegates, but who subsequently withdraw from the race. Those candidates are less likely -- obviously -- to have their name placed in nomination at the convention in Cleveland. But should a winning candidate withdraw, then their delegates are then bound to the second place finisher. If that candidate drops out, then the delegates go to the third top vote-getter. In both cases, that delegate transference is dependent upon the candidate ultimately being nominated. If not, then those delegates will be unbound free agents.
--
State allocation rules are archived here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)