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

[Tender Branson]

When will the primary calendar be final, Morden ?

[Mr. Morden]

When will the primary calendar be final, Morden ?

Theoretically, the states have to have their plans locked in by October 1.

However, in previous years, several states ended up missing that deadline, and paid no penalty for it.

[Tender Branson]

When will the primary calendar be final, Morden ?

Theoretically, the states have to have their plans locked in by October 1.

However, in previous years, several states ended up missing that deadline, and paid no penalty for it.

So, is there a way to see somewhere which states are still going to move around their date ?

[Mr. Morden]

When will the primary calendar be final, Morden ?

Theoretically, the states have to have their plans locked in by October 1.

However, in previous years, several states ended up missing that deadline, and paid no penalty for it.

So, is there a way to see somewhere which states are still going to move around their date ?

All you can do is go here:

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

and look at the footnotes, as well as the states with legislation in the works.

[Mr. Morden]

OK, here is where I’m at on this, re: Republican delegate allocation.  Putting the states in rough categories, from vaguely most WTA to most proportional:

Statewide WTA:
AZ, DE, FL, NJ, DC, maybe NC (only if they successfully move their primary), maybe OH

WTA by congressional district, plus remaining delegates are WTA by statewide vote (all CDs get the same # of delegates, regardless of # of Republican votes cast in the district):
CA, MD, WI

WTA by congressional district, plus remaining delegates are proportional by statewide vote (all CDs get the same # of delegates, regardless of # of Republican votes cast in the district):
MI, VA, VT (lol…there’s only one CD), OH* (might switch to WTA statewide as above)

WTA by congressional district, plus remaining delegates are allocated at a state convention (all CDs get the same # of delegates, regardless of # of Republican votes cast in the district):
IN

Remaining primary states (rules vary from state to state, but the most common situation is some kind of proportionality, but many states do 2 to 1 splits with each CD giving 2 delegates to the winner of that CD, and 1 delegate to the second place finisher in that CD

Loophole primaries (delegates are directly elected in the primary….in the cases of IL and PA, the number of delegates actually varies based on party strength within the district):
IL, PA, and I think WV

Caucus states: In most cases, it’s actually unclear how this is going to work, because the new RNC rules mean that the straw polls taken on caucus day have to determine delegate allocation, and most of these states have never done this before.

You’ll have to go to FHQ’s blog to see which are the caucus states.  Everything else not listed would then be in the “remaining primary states” category.  I didn’t bother looking up the rules for US territories.  If you want to know what they do in Guam, do your own research, suckers.

I did this quickly, so I probably made some mistakes.

[jimrtex]

If you want to try to compile the Republican delegate rules for each state, go here:

Texas: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/TX-R
The update given in 2014 says that of the state’s 152 delegates, 75% will be allocated based on the results of the primary, while the remaining 25% will be allocated WTA at the state party convention.  But the details of how those 75% will be allocated remain a mystery, because the subsequent explanation on that page explains how it would work if all of the delegates were decided by the outcome of the primary, which is no longer the case.

Reading the actual rules, my interpretation is this:

155 total delegates.  It is 25% of those (38) that are chosen on a WTA basis at the state convention.

108 CD delegates elected based on the primary, 3 per each of the 36 CDs:
(a) Majority: Winner (3).
(b) Leader over 20%: Winner (2), Second (1)
(c) Nobody over 20%: Winner (1), Second (1), Third (1).

This leaves 3 slots for party leaders, and 6 at-large to be elected based on the primary.

It appears that the RPT rules assume that 25% of the delegates don't have to be based on the primary. But I can't find any such provision in the RNC rules.

Texas doesn't like proportional allocation of delegates, but was forced to use them because of an early primary. In 2012, when the primary was delayed until May, there was serious consideration to switching back to WTA.

[Minnesota Mike]

If you want to try to compile the Republican delegate rules for each state, go here:

Texas: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/TX-R
The update given in 2014 says that of the state’s 152 delegates, 75% will be allocated based on the results of the primary, while the remaining 25% will be allocated WTA at the state party convention.  But the details of how those 75% will be allocated remain a mystery, because the subsequent explanation on that page explains how it would work if all of the delegates were decided by the outcome of the primary, which is no longer the case.

Reading the actual rules, my interpretation is this:

155 total delegates.  It is 25% of those (38) that are chosen on a WTA basis at the state convention.

108 CD delegates elected based on the primary, 3 per each of the 36 CDs:
(a) Majority: Winner (3).
(b) Leader over 20%: Winner (2), Second (1)
(c) Nobody over 20%: Winner (1), Second (1), Third (1).

This leaves 3 slots for party leaders, and 6 at-large to be elected based on the primary.

It appears that the RPT rules assume that 25% of the delegates don't have to be based on the primary. But I can't find any such provision in the RNC rules.

Texas doesn't like proportional allocation of delegates, but was forced to use them because of an early primary. In 2012, when the primary was delayed until May, there was serious consideration to switching back to WTA.

The RNC rejected the Texas GOP plan to award 25% of the delegates at the convention. All delegates will be allocated by the Primary

http://www.texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/2014-Rules-as-amended-by-SREC-03.07.15-fixed-cd-06.18.15-with-RNC-Letter-on-Rule-38.pdf

(RNC letter to Texas GOP at the bottom of the PDF).

[Minnesota Mike]

OK, here is where I’m at on this, re: Republican delegate allocation.  Putting the states in rough categories, from vaguely most WTA to most proportional:

Statewide WTA:
AZ, DE, FL, NJ, DC, maybe NC (only if they successfully move their primary), maybe OH

WTA by congressional district, plus remaining delegates are WTA by statewide vote (all CDs get the same # of delegates, regardless of # of Republican votes cast in the district):
CA, MD, WI

WTA by congressional district, plus remaining delegates are proportional by statewide vote (all CDs get the same # of delegates, regardless of # of Republican votes cast in the district):
MI, VA, VT (lol…there’s only one CD), OH* (might switch to WTA statewide as above)

WTA by congressional district, plus remaining delegates are allocated at a state convention (all CDs get the same # of delegates, regardless of # of Republican votes cast in the district):
IN

Remaining primary states (rules vary from state to state, but the most common situation is some kind of proportionality, but many states do 2 to 1 splits with each CD giving 2 delegates to the winner of that CD, and 1 delegate to the second place finisher in that CD

Loophole primaries (delegates are directly elected in the primary….in the cases of IL and PA, the number of delegates actually varies based on party strength within the district):
IL, PA, and I think WV

Caucus states: In most cases, it’s actually unclear how this is going to work, because the new RNC rules mean that the straw polls taken on caucus day have to determine delegate allocation, and most of these states have never done this before.

You’ll have to go to FHQ’s blog to see which are the caucus states.  Everything else not listed would then be in the “remaining primary states” category.  I didn’t bother looking up the rules for US territories.  If you want to know what they do in Guam, do your own research, suckers.

I did this quickly, so I probably made some mistakes.

Many of these states will have to tweak their rules to get into compliance with the RNC. Example states holding contests between March 1 and March 14th will no longer be able to award any delegates on a WTA basis, even at the Congressional District level so a state such as VA will will have to change their rules.

[Mr. Morden]

OK, here is where I’m at on this, re: Republican delegate allocation.  Putting the states in rough categories, from vaguely most WTA to most proportional:

Statewide WTA:
AZ, DE, FL, NJ, DC, maybe NC (only if they successfully move their primary), maybe OH

WTA by congressional district, plus remaining delegates are WTA by statewide vote (all CDs get the same # of delegates, regardless of # of Republican votes cast in the district):
CA, MD, WI

WTA by congressional district, plus remaining delegates are proportional by statewide vote (all CDs get the same # of delegates, regardless of # of Republican votes cast in the district):
MI, VA, VT (lol…there’s only one CD), OH* (might switch to WTA statewide as above)

WTA by congressional district, plus remaining delegates are allocated at a state convention (all CDs get the same # of delegates, regardless of # of Republican votes cast in the district):
IN

Remaining primary states (rules vary from state to state, but the most common situation is some kind of proportionality, but many states do 2 to 1 splits with each CD giving 2 delegates to the winner of that CD, and 1 delegate to the second place finisher in that CD

Loophole primaries (delegates are directly elected in the primary….in the cases of IL and PA, the number of delegates actually varies based on party strength within the district):
IL, PA, and I think WV

Caucus states: In most cases, it’s actually unclear how this is going to work, because the new RNC rules mean that the straw polls taken on caucus day have to determine delegate allocation, and most of these states have never done this before.

You’ll have to go to FHQ’s blog to see which are the caucus states.  Everything else not listed would then be in the “remaining primary states” category.  I didn’t bother looking up the rules for US territories.  If you want to know what they do in Guam, do your own research, suckers.

I did this quickly, so I probably made some mistakes.

Many of these states will have to tweak their rules to get into compliance with the RNC. Example states holding contests between March 1 and March 14th will no longer be able to award any delegates on a WTA basis, even at the Congressional District level so a state such as VA will will have to change their rules.

My understanding was that the pre-March 15th states could allocate delegates WTA by CD as long as the at-large delegates were allocated proportionally.  That's the way it worked with the pre-April 1st states in 2012.  Has that changed?

[Minnesota Mike]

My understanding was that the pre-March 15th states could allocate delegates WTA by CD as long as the at-large delegates were allocated proportionally.  That's the way it worked with the pre-April 1st states in 2012.  Has that changed?

Not 100% positive but I believe the new RNC rules no longer allow WTA even at the CD between March 1 and March 14th.

BTW the 4 carve out states do not have to proportionally allocate their Delegates, South Carolina is WTA by CD and at large.  

FHQ on Proportionality

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2015/04/republican-proportionality-rules.html

[Mr. Morden]

OK, I'll have to take a look at it.  Though I think of the ones I listed, the only ones using WTA by CD who'd have to switch would be Michigan, Virginia, and Vermont.

Also, it looks like Nebraska is switching to statewide WTA:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/advisory-no-more-nebraska-republicans.html

[jimrtex]

If you want to try to compile the Republican delegate rules for each state, go here:

Texas: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/TX-R
The update given in 2014 says that of the state’s 152 delegates, 75% will be allocated based on the results of the primary, while the remaining 25% will be allocated WTA at the state party convention.  But the details of how those 75% will be allocated remain a mystery, because the subsequent explanation on that page explains how it would work if all of the delegates were decided by the outcome of the primary, which is no longer the case.

Reading the actual rules, my interpretation is this:

155 total delegates.  It is 25% of those (38) that are chosen on a WTA basis at the state convention.

108 CD delegates elected based on the primary, 3 per each of the 36 CDs:
(a) Majority: Winner (3).
(b) Leader over 20%: Winner (2), Second (1)
(c) Nobody over 20%: Winner (1), Second (1), Third (1).

This leaves 3 slots for party leaders, and 6 at-large to be elected based on the primary.

It appears that the RPT rules assume that 25% of the delegates don't have to be based on the primary. But I can't find any such provision in the RNC rules.

Texas doesn't like proportional allocation of delegates, but was forced to use them because of an early primary. In 2012, when the primary was delayed until May, there was serious consideration to switching back to WTA.

The RNC rejected the Texas GOP plan to award 25% of the delegates at the convention. All delegates will be allocated by the Primary

http://www.texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/2014-Rules-as-amended-by-SREC-03.07.15-fixed-cd-06.18.15-with-RNC-Letter-on-Rule-38.pdf

(RNC letter to Texas GOP at the bottom of the PDF).

Thank you.  It is interesting that the RPT wrote the Rule 38(9)(c) in a way that permitted rejection by the RNC. Maybe there was an effort to secure a change in RNC rules to permit 25% of delegates to be elected in an non-proportional basis.

Note that in Texas all national delegates are chosen at the state convention. The RNC rules only require a delegate to stick with their candidate for a 1st ballot.

So the 44 at-large delegates will be allocated as follows:

Candidate with a majority: winner-take-all.
Multiple candidates above 20%: Proportional between those above 20%.
One above 20%: Proportional between 1st and 2nd place.
None above 20%: Proportional among all.

The filing deadline is in early December, and withdrawal has to be almost immediate.  So it is likely that there will be only a candidate or two above 20% (Cruz, Bush, Trump, Carson, Rubio).

Pataki, Gilmore, Christie, Graham will be at 0%.

Perry, Fiorina, Kasich, Walker, Jindal, Huckabee, Paul will be in single digits.

[Minnesota Mike]

Iowa GOP Delegate allocation rules.

https://www.iowagop.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/RPI-Bylaws-Updated-2015.pdf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[jimrtex]

Iowa GOP Delegate allocation rules.

https://www.iowagop.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/RPI-Bylaws-Updated-2015.pdf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The question then is what is meant by "Iowa Caucuses" since the bylaws don't really describe a full process.

The party constitution, CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF IOWA, describes both the precinct and congressional district stages as being "caucuses", while the county and state stages are "conventions". Further the constitution provides for the delegates to be chosen at the district caucuses.

[Mr. Morden]

In previous years, the Washington GOP often split the delegate allocation between the caucus and the primary.  This time, it’ll just be based on the results of the primary:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/washington-republicans-settle-on.html

That is, the caucus will still be used to decide who the delegates are, but they’ll be pledged to candidates based purely on the results of the primary.

[Crumpets]

In previous years, the Washington GOP often split the delegate allocation between the caucus and the primary.  This time, it’ll just be based on the results of the primary:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/washington-republicans-settle-on.html

That is, the caucus will still be used to decide who the delegates are, but they’ll be pledged to candidates based purely on the results of the primary.

Sweet! Our system in 2008 was abhorrent. Holding both but only having one matter was a huge waste of money, and as a Hillary supporter, this is almost certainly good news for her.

[Mr. Morden]

In previous years, the Washington GOP often split the delegate allocation between the caucus and the primary.  This time, it’ll just be based on the results of the primary:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/washington-republicans-settle-on.html

That is, the caucus will still be used to decide who the delegates are, but they’ll be pledged to candidates based purely on the results of the primary.

Sweet! Our system in 2008 was abhorrent. Holding both but only having one matter was a huge waste of money, and as a Hillary supporter, this is almost certainly good news for her.

It's only the Republicans who'll be using the primary results to decide on delegate allocation.  AFAIK, the Dems will continue to ignore the primary, and use the caucuses to assign delegates.

[Crumpets]

In previous years, the Washington GOP often split the delegate allocation between the caucus and the primary.  This time, it’ll just be based on the results of the primary:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/washington-republicans-settle-on.html

That is, the caucus will still be used to decide who the delegates are, but they’ll be pledged to candidates based purely on the results of the primary.

Sweet! Our system in 2008 was abhorrent. Holding both but only having one matter was a huge waste of money, and as a Hillary supporter, this is almost certainly good news for her.

It's only the Republicans who'll be using the primary results to decide on delegate allocation.  AFAIK, the Dems will continue to ignore the primary, and use the caucuses to assign delegates.

Oh, great. Never mind, then.

[RI]

Looks like I'll be attending the Dem caucus and voting for Sanders/Biden/Webb, then, and hoping at least one race is competitive when the primary rolls around.

[Mr. Morden]

The Missouri GOP has decided to drop their previous delegate allocation method, which was a simple statewide WTA allocation.  Instead, they’re switching to WTA by congressional district:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/missouri-republicans-reveal-more.html

Like most other states on the Republican side who do this, each congressional district will get the same # of delegates regardless of whether that district has 300 Republicans or 300,000 Republicans.  This gives a huge advantage to candidates who can appeal to the few GOP primary voters who live in heavily Democratic districts.

[Mr. Morden]

The Ohio GOP has decided to switch to statewide WTA for their 2016 delegate allocation:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/ohio-republicans-choose-winner-take-all.html

[Mr. Morden]

So I think the following states are now set to use statewide WTA next year:

Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio, Utah and Washington DC.

North Carolina is still a maybe.

[Joe Biden 2020]

The Missouri GOP has decided to drop their previous delegate allocation method, which was a simple statewide WTA allocation.  Instead, they’re switching to WTA by congressional district:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/missouri-republicans-reveal-more.html

Like most other states on the Republican side who do this, each congressional district will get the same # of delegates regardless of whether that district has 300 Republicans or 300,000 Republicans.  This gives a huge advantage to candidates who can appeal to the few GOP primary voters who live in heavily Democratic districts.

This may be the GOP putting every plan into effect to stop the Donald from becoming the nominee.  It's clear Priebus does not want Trump to be his nominee.

[Erc]

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.

[Mr. Morden]

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.