Thursday, January 26, 2012

Pair of Introduced Bills Would Eliminate Idaho Presidential Primary

Last week the Idaho House State Affairs Committee introduced two pieces of legislation that would eliminate the Gem state presidential primary. Idaho Democrats for years have used a caucus as a means of allocating delegates to the national convention and Republicans in the state opted to follow suit for 2012, abandoning the mid-May primary. That cleared the way for the presidential primary line to be removed from the May ballot on which are choices for state and local office nominations as well.

The first bill, H 391, would simply strike the references to the presidential primary from the existing elections code while the second, H 392, would strike those references but also move the primaries for state and local office from the third Tuesday in May to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in August in even years.

This will have no bearing on the 2012 presidential primary calendar as both Idaho political parties have already decided to hold caucuses, but the change -- if passed -- would remove the presidential primary line from the primary ballot whether that election takes place in May or August. That distinction will become clearer when and if one of these two bills passes the legislature and is signed into law.

Thanks to Richard Winger of Ballot Access News for passing along the news of these bills.




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

Maine Democrats to Caucus on February 26, but...

...those municipal caucuses will not serve as the first determining step in the Maine Democratic delegate selection process.

FHQ just spoke with Maine Democratic Party Executive Director Mary Erin Casale about the apparent date change and the motivation behind the move. The Maine Democratic Party Executive Committee made the decision to shift to the earlier date and that move was finalized at the State Committee meeting on January 22. [It should be noted that the call to the Maine Democratic Convention posted on or before January 9 mentioned the February caucus date.] The primary motivating factor behind moving the Democratic municipal caucuses from March 11 to February 26 was that the earlier caucuses would help down-ballot candidates for state House and Senate collect the required signatures ahead of a March 15 deadline. The earlier organizing effort would mean that there is more time in which to complete the collection.

Whether for the presidential delegate selection process or those down-ballot races, the move to February 26 raises another set of questions. Namely, either A) does the move to a date before March 6 require a waiver from the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (Was it granted?) or B) in what other way does the move comply with the Democratic National Committee's rules on delegate selection? According to Ms. Casale the first determining step -- the one the Democratic Party eyes in these matters of compliance -- will not occur at the February 26 uniform municipal caucuses. There is no required presidential preference vote at those meetings, but caucusgoers and potential delegates to the next step in the process are free to make their preference known. This is all made easier by the fact that President Obama is running unopposed for the Democratic nomination. The official first step will occur during county meetings to occur throughout March but after March 6; the earliest date on which non-exempt states can hold a primary or caucus according to the DNC rules. That keeps the state party in compliance with the national party rules. Delegates to the state convention will be chosen at the county meetings.

Since the Maine Democratic caucuses on February 26 will produce no presidential nomination results, FHQ will keep Maine as a March state on our calendar and maps. Maine differs from Minnesota in that the latter will actually have a presidential preference vote at the state-funded caucuses on February 7, but the results will not be affirmed until March 6.




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

Race to 1144: South Carolina Primary


A few thoughts on the South Carolina results:

[For a view of the state of the overall race for the Republican nomination after the South Carolina Republican primary, see our earlier post.]

1. The streak is over. [See link above for why.] South Carolina Republican primary voters have enjoyed a three decades long streak of picking the ultimate nominee. [NOTE: That streak is only five cycles long: 1980, 1988, 1996, 2000 and 2008.] With an anti-establishment winner, South Carolina voters shed the formerly pragmatic streak they once collectively held. Of course, John McCain cut it quite close four years ago in South Carolina; winning by only an approximately three percentage point margin. Of course, Mitt Romney outperformed his 2008 total in the Palmetto state, but underperformed McCain's (establishment) total as well.

Looking at South Carolina long term in the presidential primary process, I don't know that this result is enough of an indictment on the state than, say, what happened in the Iowa Republican caucuses. Neither is going anywhere. However, as I heard on the radio and TV reports surrounding the primary in a state just thirty miles away, this is it for South Carolina. The general election will not bring the presidential candidates back to the state. And that is what separates the Palmetto state from the other three "carve out" states. Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada can claim to be or have recently and fairly consistently been competitive general election states. That is a good argument to take to the national parties: organizing for the primary/caucus equals early organizing for the general election. South Carolina cannot make that argument, but on the flip side of the coin, it has been able to make the argument of being the conservative firewall that typically sends the frontrunner -- and presumptive nominee -- off to other states heading in the right direction. The state also, given its first in the South moniker, also gives voice to southern voters, a valuable constituency within the party. Finally, while the presidential nominees won't return to South Carolina in the fall, the early organizing -- it could be argued -- would help in down ballot races there. ...it could be argued.

2. Romney effect. FHQ has not seen this theory postulated anywhere else -- forgive me if it has been written or said elsewhere -- but I'm wondering if it is possible that something akin to the Bradley effect is going on with Mitt Romney. Before I explain let me say that what we saw last Saturday in South Carolina could have been nothing more or less than undecideds breaking for Newt Gingrich on election day. After all, Romney's support in the state didn't shrink so much as flatline as the election grew near. That said, Public Policy Polling consistently found in South Carolina that while there was some discomfort with the idea of a Mormon president, there was a three-fifths to two-thirds majority of respondents who were not bothered by that notion in the least. But in a race in which "anti-religious bigotry" has made an appearance in the rhetoric, I'm curious if there may have been at least some social desirability bias involved here; that respondents who might otherwise answer in the negative to that question might feel pressured, in the interest of not seeming intolerant, to say the Mormon issue is not bothersome. [Yes, PPP utilizes telephone robocalls to administer their surveys, so that removes that particular layer from this equation.]

It is too true that this -- the Mormon comfort question -- is a step removed from the response on the candidate choice question, but still, the thought has crossed my mind. A couple of other points on this issue: A) This is harder to examine in a multi-candidate primary setting than it would if we had just two candidates left. B) This potentially dovetails nicely with FHQ's "southern question" as this phenomenon, I would suspect, would be more pronounced in the South than elsewhere in the country. [I'm open to counterpoints on that hypothesis, though. Thought exercise.]

--

Source:
Contest Delegates (via contest results)
Automatic Delegates (Democratic Convention Watch)

[NOTE: There is still no allocation of delegates in Iowa. FHQ is looking at you, uh, most major news outlets. Iowa's delegates will be allocated in June at the state convention and will go to Tampa unbound.]

The race for delegates has also tightened up post-South Carolina.

  • Gingrich and Romney both added one automatic delegate each in the lead up to or immediate aftermath of the South Carolina primary.
  • The primary netted Gingrich 23 delegates -- by virtue of having won the statewide vote and the congressional district vote in six of South Carolina's seven districts. Mitt Romney seemingly won the first district and its two delegates. 
  • NOTE: Please note that there is nothing official being reported by the South Carolina State Elections Commission in terms of the congressional district by congressional district vote. In large part that is due to the fact that the current (newly redrawn) districts are being challenged in court and may [MAY] change. Depending on the outcome of that case and any subsequent redrawing of the lines, the allocation may also change. [The new lines were precleared by the Obama administration's Department of Justice.] As of now, FHQ will treat the allocation as if the new boundaries will hold. We shall see. 

See previous results here:
New Hampshire
Iowa (certified)



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

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Maine GOP Begins Caucusing Saturday

In the midst of some research on the filing deadlines -- grand manifesto on filing to come later -- FHQ happened upon the state party site devoted to the Maine Republican caucuses (information on locations, dates, times, etc.). What I found was fairly interesting and obviously isn't being talked about probably outside of the Pine Tree state. As it turns out, Maine Republicans in a few towns will caucus this Saturday (January 28). The original plan I spoke with the Maine Republican Party about back in September revolved around the idea of holding caucuses within a window from February 4 and February 11 with a big reveal on that final date. That is still mostly true as most of the caucus venues will hold party meetings within that window. However, there are a few caucuses that branch out quite far from those two bookend dates. The collective caucus Lincoln, Lowell, Burlington, Chester, Enfield, Winn and Howland will take place the Saturday and the precinct caucus process will not officially wind down until the caucuses in Castine take place on March 3.

Now, this is not all that unusual. Well, it is unique, but it isn't unprecedented. Caucus states will often not have a uniform date for caucuses at the precinct or county level. That said, that phenomenon is typically limited to caucus states of the in-party (in the White House); especially in those cycles where there is no competition for the in-party nomination. Those state parties have little incentive to force precinct caucuses onto one date or a small window of time because the results are not all that consequential outside of choosing delegates. The news is not needed, in other words, to update a ongoing delegate count.

But the Maine Republican Party will begin caucusing this weekend and not be able to report final official results until the weekend immediately prior to Super Tuesday (March 6). That is not to suggest that results won't trickle out over the course of that month long period, but they will not be complete results until March.

[The three "overflow" caucuses will not take part in the official straw poll. Those results will still be released on February 11.]

Now, which candidate will make a last minute trip up to Penobscot County before Saturday?







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

Monday, January 23, 2012

Musings on the Republican Nomination Race, Post-South Carolina

Where do we go from here?

Following the Gingrich victory in South Carolina, the race for the Republican presidential nomination has taken yet another turn. And this time, for the first time since probably early December, the contest is lodged in the gray area between being a momentum contest1 and a delegate counting contest.2 Truth be told, the line is often blurred between those two distinctions. Most nominations in the post-reform era have tended to be momentum contests with a frontrunner -- having been established in the invisible primary -- winning early and often and using those early wins as  springboard into a Super Tuesday series of contests to build a seemingly insurmountable lead (both in momentum and in delegates).

Due to the way the primary calendar is set up in 2012 and the current fits and starts nature of the dynamic in the race, however, this cycle is shaping up differently. The notion of Mitt Romney sweeping or nearly sweeping the January contests and putting the nomination race to rest are gone -- even with a Florida win. But the idea of a momentum contest -- one that will typically develop behind the frontrunner, no matter how nominal -- is not completely dead.  Romney remains the frontrunner. The former Massachusetts governor is viewed as the establishment choice and is the only candidate to this point to have placed in the top two in each of the first three contests. He is still the favorite to build a consensus around his candidacy -- just not as much as he was in the five days or so after the New Hampshire primary.

But the question remains just how will Romney, or any other candidate for that matter, build a consensus and win the nomination. There are two main avenues from FHQ's perspective; one narrow and one fairly broad. The narrow path to the nomination is that Mitt Romney bounces back from the South Carolina primary, wins Florida, uses his organizational advantage over Gingrich and Santorum in the February caucus states, and then wins in Arizona and Michigan. The broader path is one that devolves into a contest-by-contest struggle; a battle for delegates the end game of which is the point where one candidate has a wide enough delegate margin that cannot be overcome given the number of delegates to be allocated remaining. [See Norrander, 2000]

FHQ is conservative in how we approach these things. Our basic rules of thumb are: 1) No option is off the table until it is off the table. 2) Past precedent tells us that the frontrunner usually ends up the nominee. [See, Mayer 2003] Now, past is not necessarily prologue, especially when the dynamics, calendars and rules differ across such a comparatively small number of observations in the post-reform era. But in this case, FHQ sees the narrow path described above as the likely outcome; more likely than the delegate counting route.

The hold that has on our thinking, though, is very tenuous indeed. It is not far-fetched to see Romney rebounding from South Carolina to win in Florida on January 31. It is not far-fetched to foresee the former governor parlay that win into wins in the remaining February contests -- though that mid-February gap in the calendar is a great unknown in terms of these calculations. Previously, FHQ has argued that that February period with no contests would put significant strain on candidates financially. That view was predicated on a Romney (near-)sweep in January forcing amped up pressure on the remaining candidates to drop out. Gingrich's South Carolina win alleviates some of that potential pressure. A win allows a non-frontrunner candidate in these early stages to get his or her foot in the door for arguing viability. Romney, then, would have a more difficult time shutting the door on Gingrich and to some extent Santorum (if he can survive that long). [Ron Paul is in it for the long haul. That is why this discussion is light on the Texas congressman.]

But even a February sweep -- if we are constraining our view to the narrow path to the nomination -- is  likely not enough to close this out for Romney or more to the point, to force the others from the race. There is one lingering question coming out of South Carolina that cannot be answered until Super Tuesday/March 6 at the earliest. Even if Romney wins all of the February contests he is still vulnerable to the charge that he has not won in the South; a core constituency within the Republican Party.3 Now, that is not to suggest that Romney as the Republican nominee would struggle in the South in the general election. Yet, not winning in the reddest region of the country in the primary phase does signal that the part of the core of the party is not on board with the former Massachusetts governor's nomination. That may or may not be enough to "veto" a Romney nomination, but it does provide his opponents with a solid argument for staying in -- particularly if it is the same candidate (presumably Gingrich) winning there.

The other layer to this -- the one about which FHQ has received the most inquiries since Saturday -- how the rules for delegate allocation begin to affect all of this. To reiterate an earlier point, the rules are the exact same as they were in 2008 in each of the states with contests prior to March. To the extent we witness differences, it will be due to the dynamics of the race and not the delegate allocation rules. The changes brought about because of the new "proportionality" requirement on the Republican side begin to kick in once the calendar flips to March. Now, it is still too early to tell what impact those rules will have. Mainly, that is due to the fact that we just don't know which candidates -- or how many candidates, really -- will still be alive at that point. The modal response from the states to the RNC proportionality rule was to make the allocation of delegates conditional on a certain threshold of the vote. If a candidate receives at least 50% of the vote, then the allocation is winner-take-all (or the at-large delegate allocation is winner-take-all). But if no candidate crosses that bar, the allocation is proportional (overall or for just the at-large delegates). The more candidates that survive, in other words, the more likely it is that the allocation is proportional. It would be more difficult for one candidate to receive 50% of the vote. The double-edged sword of proportional allocation is that while it may make it harder -- take longer -- for the leading candidate to reach 1144 delegates (if triggered), it also makes it more difficult for those attempting to catch the leader as well. The margin (of delegates) for the winners is often not that large.

Taken together, the South questions and the proportionality requirement jumble the outlook for this race. Romney may or may not be required to win in the South to win the nomination. But winning there would go a long way toward forcing other candidates from the race and preventing the nomination from falling into a delegate count. The problem is that those two things -- the race turning South again and the potential proportionality kicking in -- hit at the same point. And that leaves us with any number of permutations for directions in which the race could go, whether taking the narrow path or broad path.

Will the rules matter? They always do, but they will really matter when and if Romney is unable to rebound and run off a series of February wins. That is what we should be looking at now.

--
1 Defined by a candidate sweeping or nearly sweeping the early contests to overwhelm his or her opponents.

2 Defined by a candidate at some point beyond the first handful of contests either crosses the 50% plus one delegate threshold or develops a big enough lead to force his or her opponents from the race at some point outside of the first handful of contests.

3 There are no southern primaries or caucuses after South Carolina until a series of contests on March 6.




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

Friday, January 20, 2012

Race to 1144: Iowa Caucuses Redux


[An earlier version of the above total showed Mitt Romney with 29,305 votes instead of 29,805 votes.]

Though the newly certified results from the Republican Party of Iowa in no way affect the delegate total from the Hawkeye state, FHQ would like to take the opportunity -- pre-South Carolina primary -- to update both the vote totals from the Iowa caucuses and the delegate totals as they have shifted due to the developments this week.

  • John Huntsman has not issued any public release of his two New Hampshire delegates and as such, those two delegates remain in his column. Again, this [the release] is based on New Hampshire state law
  • Rick Perry also had delegates, but since they were automatic delegates there was no binding mechanism behind their support. [That is true of most automatic delegates.] Unbound as they are, those three delegates are now free agents following Perry's withdrawal from the race; free to choose whomever they please. One, Henry Barbour, has already opted to side with Mitt Romney
  • Newt Gingrich has also picked up an automatic delegate.

--

Source:
Contest Delegates (via contest results)
Automatic Delegates (Democratic Convention Watch)
--
See also: New Hampshire results



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

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Of Course Rick Santorum Won Iowa...

...but Mitt Romney did, too.

Both were able to beat the medium term expectations that had developed around their campaigns relative to the Iowa caucuses.1 Part of the story coming out of the Hawkeye state was the closeness of the top two, and while that is a fun footnote -- or will be in the history books -- to the caucuses, the main stories from FHQ's perspective were that Santorum was able to become the top not-Romney in the state and that Romney, despite the underlying demographics of caucusgoers, was able to finish in the top tier. Santorum exceeded expectations and Romney -- even in the worst case scenario -- either met, by being in the top tier, or exceeded expectations.

Whether the two flip flop their positions in the Iowa GOP-certified results this week will do little to change the dynamic that has developed in this race: Romney is the frontrunner and Santorum's name is on more lips and in more minds post-Iowa than they would have been if he had finished behind Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry on the night of January 3. Going back and trying to rewrite the story based on the shifting of less than 100 votes or so in the margin will have very little effect on what's going on now. Rick Santorum would still face the same sort of questions Mike Huckabee faced four years ago (Specifically, can insta-organization compete with the well-oiled machine of a well-financed frontrunner?), and Mitt Romney would still have -- at the very worst -- met expectations in the first two states while his rivals, with the exceptions of Paul in both Iowa and New Hampshire and Santorum in Iowa, underperformed.

This would have been a fun question -- the type Public Policy Polling likes to throw into their surveys from time to time -- to include in a South Carolina or Florida poll. My strong hunch is that it would make very little difference in vote choice in either the Palmetto or Sunshine state.2 The only time that this might have mattered was in the early morning hours of January 4. Good luck constructing that counterfactual. If anyone is able to, please let me know. I want to check out your time machine.

"Stop the inevitability narrative in its tracks"? Eh, probably not. It may be a speed bump, but more like one of those varmints Mitt Romney once hunted than an elk or moose in the headlights.

--
1 By medium term I mean something akin to a rolling average of expectations over time; something that is not susceptible to an outlier survey's snapshot of the race.

2 Granted, I think it would be difficult to determine whether that was actually part of a voter's decision-making calculus anyway. ...but that's a whole different can of worms from the political science/public opinion literature.




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

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

About Those Two Huntsman Delegates

FHQ does not want to press upon our readers the delegate math -- especially when it may [MAY] not prove all that consequential in ultimately determining the Republican presidential nominee -- but to the extent that examples arise that further our knowledge of the process, we will take the time to attempt to explain what's going on. Case in point: Remember those two delegates John Huntsman won in New Hampshire last week? What now becomes of them?

The answer lies in the very same statute -- referenced in the New Hampshire delegate allocation primer from December -- that determines the proportional allocation of delegates in the Granite state, Chapter 659, section 93 of Title LXIII (Elections). Part VI of that code establishes the following:
If a presidential candidate has received a share of the delegates as a result of the presidential primary but withdraws as a presidential candidate at any time prior to the convention, his pledged delegates shall be released by the candidate and each delegate is free to support any candidate of his political party who may be his choice as a candidate for president.
Now, John Huntsman withdrew from the race suspended his campaign on Monday (January 16) and immediately endorsed Mitt Romney. However, that endorsement does not automatically shift the two delegates Huntsman won to Romney. Free of the bond of the candidate to whom they were pledged, those two delegates are free to support any candidate they choose -- independent of each other -- in between now and the convention in Tampa. In other words, the delegate pledge is not transferable when and if a withdrawing candidate endorses a still-competing candidate. The reality is that those delegates are very likely to be Romney supporters in the end. But there is no formal route for that endgame. Those two delegates may remain unpledged heading into the convention and support the presumptive nominee there, or they could stick with Huntsman or move now to any other candidate and hold that preference up to and through the roll call vote at the convention. The former is most likely, but a move to Romney -- in the interest of unity -- now would not be at all surprising either.

NOTE: For now those two delegates will remain in Huntsman's column until the point at which there are reports that those delegates have pledged to support another candidate.

Monday, January 16, 2012

Louisiana Republican Caucuses Slated for April 28

In a press release today, the Louisiana Republican Party indicated that it would hold April 28 congressional district caucuses to begin the process of allocating its 18 congressional district delegates.1 [The 25 at-large delegates are allocated and bound according to the whether a candidate or candidates break a 25% threshold in the March 24 presidential primary.] Four years ago the district caucuses preceded the presidential primary by a couple of weeks, occurring on January 22 in between the South Carolina Republican primary and Florida primary. The 2008 Louisiana primary did not occur until the Saturday after Super Tuesday.

There has been some on again/off again chatter that the Louisiana Republican Party would reprise that January contest in 2012, but a conflict over the number of state delegates Louisiana was apportioned by the Republican National Committee kept the scheduling of the caucuses in limbo until last week.2 It was at that time that the RNC -- during the winter meeting in New Orleans last week -- halted the state party plan to hold caucuses in the seven congressional districts in existence prior to the 2010 census instead of the six in place post-census. In terms of the delegate total, Louisiana would have netted an additional three delegates, but again the RNC shot that down.

The Louisiana GOP, then, will hold a March 24 primary for the purpose of allocating at-large delegates and then a month later, hold district caucuses in the six congressional districts on April 28. The actual delegates will be selected at the June state convention, but only the at-large delegates will be bound based on the results of the March primary.

Thanks to Kevin Yeaux for passing this news along.

--
1 Below is the "Louisiana Caucus Date" press release from LAGOP:
Dear Louisiana Republicans:

The Republican National Committee met in New Orleans on Friday and cleared the way for states like Louisiana to bind delegates to presidential candidates according to the results of presidential primaries. This ruling confirmed our ability to move forward under our current rules.

The RNC has also ruled that Louisiana must conduct delegate elections in its six new congressional districts instead of the seven current districts. This action deprived our state of three additional delegates that we feel we are entitled to. We were disappointed by this decision.

Regardless, it is now time to move forward with our delegate selection process.

The Republican Party of Louisiana will conduct congressional district caucuses on Saturday, April 28, 2012 for the purpose of electing delegates to the Louisiana Republican State Convention. Delegates to the Republican National Convention will be elected by the State Convention on June 2nd in Shreveport.

Louisiana voters affiliated with the Republican Party on or before December 15, 2011 are eligible to participate in the caucuses.

Caucus voting will be conducted between 8:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon. Any qualified voter who is in line at noon will be allowed to vote. Voters are not required to stay for a meeting in order to vote. Voters will elect 25 delegates and 12 alternates from their new congressional districts. Each person may cast votes for up to 25 candidates for delegate and up to 12 candidates for alternate.

In order to run for state convention delegate or alternate, candidates must qualify with the Republican Party of Louisiana. There will be two methods of qualifying. Those who desire to qualify online may do so on April 10-12, 2012. Online qualifying will end at 5:00 p.m. on April 12th. Names of candidates who qualify online will be listed online so that they may verify that their registrations have been received. Those who do not want to register online and those wishing to pay for one or more candidates by check may deliver registration forms and checks in person on Tuesday, April 10, 2012, between 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. at Republican Party of Louisiana Headquarters, 530 Lakeland Drive, Suite 215, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

The registration fee for a candidate for state convention delegate is $200. The fee to run for alternate is $75. Qualifying forms and caucus locations will be published in the weeks ahead. 
Voters will be assigned to one of approximately 30 voting sites across Louisiana. In most cases, entire parishes will be assigned to one site. At some sites, voters from more than one congressional district will vote. When voters sign in, they will be provided the appropriate ballot for their congressional district. Voters are required to provide a photo ID in order to obtain a ballot. Voter registration cards are not required for check in, but we encourage voters to bring one in case there is any question about their eligibility to participate.

Delegates and alternates to the Republican National Convention will be selected on June 2, 2012 at the Louisiana Republican State Convention in Shreveport by state convention delegates. It is not necessary to be a state convention delegate in order to be elected as a national convention delegate. Qualifying procedures for national delegate and alternate will be announced at a later date.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,
Roger F. Villere, Jr.
Chairman 


2 In fact, it was during Ron Paul's post-Iowa introduction by his son -- one that mentioned moving on to a group of early state contests that included Louisiana -- that made FHQ wonder if Louisiana Republicans were once again preparing for January caucuses.




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

Friday, January 13, 2012

A Follow Up on South Carolina Republican Delegate Allocation

Iowa...New Hampshire...on to South Carolina.

FHQ has fielded several questions over the last several days on how exactly the South Carolina Republican Party will allocate its apportioned delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa following the sanctions that cut the Palmetto state delegation in half. We have already covered what the South Carolina Republican Party rules have to say on the matter -- exempt from the new proportionality requirement and winner-take-all statewide and by congressional district -- but that does not give us any clear indication of how the process would work once the penalty has been levied against the state delegation.

FHQ exchanged emails with South Carolina Republican Party Executive Director Matt Moore earlier this week, and he confirmed that the party would use the same rules it used in 2008 under similar circumstances. Instead of having 50 total delegates with 26 at-large delegates allocated winner-take-all based on the statewide vote and an additional 21 delegates (3 delegates per each congressional district) allocated winner-take-all according to the vote on the congressional district level, the formula will reduce by nearly half the those totals while remaining winner-take-all.

Here's how it works:

  • The three national delegates -- to which the SCGOP rules do not refer -- are eliminated in any state violating the RNC rules on presidential primary timing. The SCGOP chair and both the Republican National committeeman and committeewoman will still go to the convention but will not have voting powers on the floor.
  • Instead of apportioning 3 delegates per congressional district, under the penalties, the South Carolina Republican Party will allot each district two delegates. That reduces the number of congressional district delegates from 21 to 14 -- a reduction of only one-third.
  • The statewide at-large delegate total will bear the brunt of the penalty; decreasing from 26 delegates to just 11. That is a penalty of more than half of the original total of at-large delegates. The winner of the statewide vote -- whether by plurality or majority -- will be allocated all 11 delegates.

Again, this was the same method of delegate allocation that the SCGOP used following the penalties imposed when the state party moved the Palmetto state presidential primary into January in 2008. The result was that John McCain won 18 of the available 24 delegates -- 12 for the statewide win while splitting evenly the six congressional district votes with Mike Huckabee for the remaining 6 delegates. A narrow win (~4%) in 2008 netted McCain a 3:1 advantage in the delegate count coming out of the state. The statewide at-large delegates make the difference.




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