Primary calendar / poll closing times and delegate allocation megathread (Christmas is saved!)

[Erc]

Erc, you should alert the Texas Democratic Party of this mistake, so that they can get the DNC to fix it.  You'll be a state hero in Texas for getting them their fair share of delegates.

I got on their email list in order to access the Texas Democratic Primary/Caucus results in 2008, and I'm pretty sure one of my email accounts' inbox is now 90% messages from the Texas Democratic Party.  'Bout time I get something in return

[jimrtex]

Beginning to work through delegate allocation for both sides this year, and I noticed something a bit weird about the Democratic side:

The formula for the number of base number of delegates given to each state is given in the Call of the Convention (most recent version I could find is here)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where SDV represents the vote for the Democratic candidate in the given state in the given year, TDV represents the vote for the Democratic candidate nationwide in the given year, and SEV means the state's electoral vote.

Basically, this formula gives equal weight to total population (or its rough proxy in Electoral Votes) and number of Democrats (or its rough proxy in votes for Obama x 2 and Kerry).

Running the numbers and comparing them with the DNC's stated results (Appendix B of the call), the numbers seem a bit off, and not just due to rounding errors.  Some states are underrepresented by the DNC's calculation compared to the formula (TX by 11 delegates, FL by 5), while other states are overrepresented (Ohio by 5, NY/PA/MA by 4).

What seems to be going on here is that the DNC chose to use not the current EV figures, but the EV figures from 2004/2008!  This accounts for virtually all of the differences (apart from obvious rounding discrepancies and one oddity with NY which may be due to Fusion); note that in particular they are not averaging the EV counts over the last three elections, either.

Basically, the population weighting being done is on the basis of the outdated 2000 census, favoring the north and east over the south and west.

No one seems to have caught this so far; in particular, Texas (the state with the most to lose), goes along with the DNC's count in their delegate selection plan.

Blue states are overrepresented; red are underrepresented---this is essentially a map of which states lost or gained EVs in the 2010 reapportionment. 

It should be stressed this isn't a large effect: we're talking about 30-35 (base) pledged delegates here, or about 1% of the total.

Maybe they were arithmetically challenged.

If it were based on one election, they would use:

AF = 1/2 * ( (SDV/TDV) + (SEV/TEV) )

If you wanted to use multiple elections you would then use:

AF = 1/3 * (AF2012 + AF2008 + AF 2004)

Someone may have got confused when rearranging terms, and instead of:

AF = 1/2 * (1/3 * (SDV2012/TDV2012 + SDV2008/TDV2008 + SDV2004/TDV2004) )

decided to use their form which eliminates the 1/3 used to average the vote share. It is also possible that they wanted to weight the higher turnout elections heavier.

Since TEV is a constant, it doesn't matter which form they use, and may have even led them to cover up their actual calculation, such that you had to reverse engineer it from the Appendix.

[Erc]

-snip-

Maybe they were arithmetically challenged.

If it were based on one election, they would use:

AF = 1/2 * ( (SDV/TDV) + (SEV/TEV) )

If you wanted to use multiple elections you would then use:

AF = 1/3 * (AF2012 + AF2008 + AF 2004)

Someone may have got confused when rearranging terms, and instead of:

AF = 1/2 * (1/3 * (SDV2012/TDV2012 + SDV2008/TDV2008 + SDV2004/TDV2004) )

decided to use their form which eliminates the 1/3 used to average the vote share. It is also possible that they wanted to weight the higher turnout elections heavier.

Since TEV is a constant, it doesn't matter which form they use, and may have even led them to cover up their actual calculation, such that you had to reverse engineer it from the Appendix.

Yeah, I thought of something like that, but even if you weight the EV 1/3 2004, 1/3 2008, 1/3 2012, you're still off by a noticeable number of delegates; you need to be using 2000 Census EVs consistently to get their numbers.

And (with two very minor exceptions in ME & MN) the numbers are entirely consistent in all states that had no EV change between the two censuses, suggesting that the problem is entirely on the EV side of things.

I ended up calling the number suggested in Appendix B, and they were kind enough to get back to me right away.  They suggested that this issue might be fixed in a newer version of the Call to Convention (i.e. the ones that incorporate the Bonus Delegates from later primaries or Regional Clusters), which should come out in a couple weeks.  (Though where exactly I'd find an updated version once they do it, I'm not sure).

[Mr. Morden]

I ended up calling the number suggested in Appendix B, and they were kind enough to get back to me right away.  They suggested that this issue might be fixed in a newer version of the Call to Convention (i.e. the ones that incorporate the Bonus Delegates from later primaries or Regional Clusters), which should come out in a couple weeks.

You may have saved them from allocating an incorrect number of delegates to various states, thereby swinging the nomination towards one candidate or another, and altering the course of history.

Clinton is strong in the South, so I think your making that phone call may have prevented Sanders from pulling off an upset victory. 

[defe07]

I would like all state to allocate their delegates proportionally. Winner-take-all seems to be unfair to me, since you can easily have 4 to 6 candidates who have different appeal across a state. If FL would say that the statewide delegates are allocated by WTA and the district delegates are allocated 2x1 (winner gets 2, runner-up gets 1), that would be fairer.

[Mr. Morden]

The RNC will do a big event next month to explain all the delegate rules to reporters:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/09/rnc-plans-reporter-boot-camp-213972

[Mr. Morden]

Today, the North Carolina legislature will vote on the conference committee version of the bill that would move the primary to March 15:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/winner-take-all-presidential-primary.html

Looks like the bill would also shift NC's delegate allocation to statewide WTA.

[Erc]

The Republican Party calendar, as it stands at present.  States have been resized so that their areas are proportional to the number of delegates they have (one small square = one delegate)

Dark Red: February
Red: March 1
Orange: March 2-14
Yellow: March 15-31
Green: April
Blue: May
Purple: June
Gray: Unclear

The unclear states at present:

Colorado may hold a caucus in February, but if so will not hold a straw poll at the same time.  It's as yet unclear if the RNC will allow this, and Colorado may still change its mind.  The likely backup option would be March 1.

North Carolina seems likely to choose a March 15 primary (yellow).

D.C. is likely to have its caucus/convention in late March (yellow).

I have no idea what's going on in North Dakota, Alaska, or the minor territories (Guam/Virgin Islands/Northern Marianas/American Samoa).

The existence of three delegates depend on this year's gubernatorial elections in Kentucky, Louisiana, and Mississippi; each state electing a Republican governor receives an extra delegate.

[Minnesota Mike]

Today, the North Carolina legislature will vote on the conference committee version of the bill that would move the primary to March 15:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/winner-take-all-presidential-primary.html

Looks like the bill would also shift NC's delegate allocation to statewide WTA.

According to FHQ the bill passed both Houses and is on the way to the Governor.

Also to clarify only on the Republicans would be WTA. 

[Minnesota Mike]

I would like all state to allocate their delegates proportionally. Winner-take-all seems to be unfair to me, since you can easily have 4 to 6 candidates who have different appeal across a state. If FL would say that the statewide delegates are allocated by WTA and the district delegates are allocated 2x1 (winner gets 2, runner-up gets 1), that would be fairer.

Not sure what the fairest method is but the Republicans need some consistency in their allocation rules, the rules are allover the map. The Democrats system has it's flaws (Super Delegates)  but the basic framework is at least consistent.  Proportional both statewide and by CD, 15% threshold, 1/4 of delegates allocated statewide and 3/4 by CD.  Also the more Democratic CD's get more delegates.

[Erc]

I would like all state to allocate their delegates proportionally. Winner-take-all seems to be unfair to me, since you can easily have 4 to 6 candidates who have different appeal across a state. If FL would say that the statewide delegates are allocated by WTA and the district delegates are allocated 2x1 (winner gets 2, runner-up gets 1), that would be fairer.

Not sure what the fairest method is but the Republicans need some consistency in their allocation rules, the rules are allover the map. The Democrats system has it's flaws (Super Delegates)  but the basic framework is at least consistent.  Proportional both statewide and by CD, 15% threshold, 1/4 of delegates allocated statewide and 3/4 by CD.  Also the more Democratic CD's get more delegates.

I think in the Republicans' view is that it's consistent with their governing philosophy.  They wouldn't want to dictate to the states what to do, and they certainly won't impose proportional representation on everyone.  Even this year's change, making sure that caucus states bind their delegates proportionally to the vote at the caucus, is a huge and controversial change -- but one that is going to give a real boost to transparency next year.

It should be noted that the Democratic system has a lot of flaws too, many of which we saw in 2008.  As you mentioned, there are way too many superdelegates, as you mentioned.  The method of allocating delegates proportionally by congressional district also means a hell of a lot comes down to whether your congressional district has an even or an odd number of delegates.  In a close, Clinton-vs-Obama style fight, those districts with an even number of delegates are likely to split the delegates equally regardless of who wins the district.

[Minnesota Mike]

I would like all state to allocate their delegates proportionally. Winner-take-all seems to be unfair to me, since you can easily have 4 to 6 candidates who have different appeal across a state. If FL would say that the statewide delegates are allocated by WTA and the district delegates are allocated 2x1 (winner gets 2, runner-up gets 1), that would be fairer.

Not sure what the fairest method is but the Republicans need some consistency in their allocation rules, the rules are allover the map. The Democrats system has it's flaws (Super Delegates)  but the basic framework is at least consistent.  Proportional both statewide and by CD, 15% threshold, 1/4 of delegates allocated statewide and 3/4 by CD.  Also the more Democratic CD's get more delegates.

I think in the Republicans' view is that it's consistent with their governing philosophy.  They wouldn't want to dictate to the states what to do, and they certainly won't impose proportional representation on everyone.  Even this year's change, making sure that caucus states bind their delegates proportionally to the vote at the caucus, is a huge and controversial change -- but one that is going to give a real boost to transparency next year.

It should be noted that the Democratic system has a lot of flaws too, many of which we saw in 2008.  As you mentioned, there are way too many superdelegates, as you mentioned.  The method of allocating delegates proportionally by congressional district also means a hell of a lot comes down to whether your congressional district has an even or an odd number of delegates.  In a close, Clinton-vs-Obama style fight, those districts with an even number of delegates are likely to split the delegates equally regardless of who wins the district.

Agree on the flaws in the Democrats system but still makes more sense than the way Republicans pick their nominee.  Biggest Republican system flaw is in states like California that give the same number of delegates on a WTA basis to Nancy Pelosi's district as to Kevin McCarthy's.

[Erc]

I would like all state to allocate their delegates proportionally. Winner-take-all seems to be unfair to me, since you can easily have 4 to 6 candidates who have different appeal across a state. If FL would say that the statewide delegates are allocated by WTA and the district delegates are allocated 2x1 (winner gets 2, runner-up gets 1), that would be fairer.

Not sure what the fairest method is but the Republicans need some consistency in their allocation rules, the rules are allover the map. The Democrats system has it's flaws (Super Delegates)  but the basic framework is at least consistent.  Proportional both statewide and by CD, 15% threshold, 1/4 of delegates allocated statewide and 3/4 by CD.  Also the more Democratic CD's get more delegates.

I think in the Republicans' view is that it's consistent with their governing philosophy.  They wouldn't want to dictate to the states what to do, and they certainly won't impose proportional representation on everyone.  Even this year's change, making sure that caucus states bind their delegates proportionally to the vote at the caucus, is a huge and controversial change -- but one that is going to give a real boost to transparency next year.

It should be noted that the Democratic system has a lot of flaws too, many of which we saw in 2008.  As you mentioned, there are way too many superdelegates, as you mentioned.  The method of allocating delegates proportionally by congressional district also means a hell of a lot comes down to whether your congressional district has an even or an odd number of delegates.  In a close, Clinton-vs-Obama style fight, those districts with an even number of delegates are likely to split the delegates equally regardless of who wins the district.

Agree on the flaws in the Democrats system but still makes more sense than the way Republicans pick their nominee.  Biggest Republican system flaw is in states like California that give the same number of delegates on a WTA basis to Nancy Pelosi's district as to Kevin McCarthy's.

As someone whose last two CDs have been MN-05 and MA-07, I've always viewed that as an upside to the system.

[Minnesota Mike]

According to Twitter the Colorado GOP has set the Caucus for March 1.

https://twitter.com/eluning/status/647811303726170112

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

Bill Gardner says filing period for NH primary will begin on Nov. 4:

https://twitter.com/WMUR9/status/649235048017850373

Wonder when he's going to announce the date of the primary.

In principle, all states have to decide when their primaries will be by tomorrow, but as I've said upthread, states have missed these deadlines in the past, and faced no consequences.

[Mr. Morden]

McCrory has signed the bill moving the North Carolina primary to March 15:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/north-carolina-presidential-primary.html

So while some states, like New Hampshire, have yet to make formal announcements about their primary timing, we pretty much know the primary calendar now.  It’s listed here:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2016-presidential-primary-calendar.html

Mon, Feb. 1: Iowa caucuses
Tue, Feb. 9: New Hampshire primary
Sat, Feb. 20: Nevada caucuses (Dems only), South Carolina primary (GOP only)
Tue, Feb. 23: Nevada caucuses (GOP only)
Sat, Feb. 27: South Carolina primary (Dems only)
Tue, Mar. 1: Super Tuesday

Super Tuesday states:
both parties: AL, AR, CO, GA, MA, MN, OK, TN, TX, VT, VA
GOP only: WY, maybe AK, maybe ND

Then the rest of the calendar plays out, with another big primary day (though not as big as Super Tuesday) on March 15th, when you have FL, IL, MO, NC, and OH.

[/]

Interesting how a lot of the important GE states go on March 15.

Do you know why McCrory did it?

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Possibly 14 states for the GOP Super Tuesday, reminds me of 2008 all over again lol.

[Mr. Morden]

Time publishes a summary of the "Road Map" for delegate selection put out by the RNC:

http://time.com/4059030/republican-primary-calendar-2016-nomination-convention/

It says that the Alaska GOP caucuses will indeed be on Super Tuesday.  North Dakota's also provisionally placed on Super Tuesday, but it says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since the Colorado caucuses also don't include a presidential preference poll, it lists the main event in Colorado as actually being on April 9:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OTOH, the Democratic caucuses in Colorado on March 1 will be "normal" Dem. caucuses as in past years, with a presidential preference taken which'll determine delegate allocation.

[Mr. Morden]

Note that the calendar given by Time also has the dates for Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa...

[Mr. Morden]

FHQ's calendar's already been updated to indicate Alaska and North Dakota GOP caucuses on March 1:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2016-presidential-primary-calendar.html

[Minnesota Mike]

Official RNC schedule and delegate allocation rules (PDF)

https://www.gop.com/the-official-guide-to-the-2016-republican-nominating-process/

[Senator Cris]

27 IA's delegates will be proportionally allocated based on statewide vote without threshold.
So, to be sure of getting at least 1 delegate, a candidate needs 3.7% of the vote, but one candidate might get a delegate with a lower % because of remains.

[Mr. Morden]

Here’s FHQ’s summary of Republican delegate allocation by state:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/2016-republican-delegate-allocation.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

Question for jimrtx, or anyone else who knows this stuff better than I do:

I was thinking about the longshot "no one finishes the primaries with a majority of delegates" scenario.  If you go to the Atlas's "results" page for the 2012 GOP primaries, Romney only has 51.3% of the delegates.  A whopping 29% are "unallocated".  Who are these unallocated delegates?  I'm assuming that some of them are the three party officials for each state, but also unbound delegates from caucus states, and unbound delegates from states like Pennsylvania which have wonky rules about delegate selection?

Given that the RNC now requires the straw poll results in caucus states to bind the votes of delegates in those states, I'm assuming that this "unallocated" number will be significantly smaller than 29% this time?  Any idea how much smaller?

And are these people likely to be pro-establishment candidates?  Or not?