If you were in charge of a State GOP, what sort of primary system is best?

[The Ex-Factor]

Imagine that you have a significant amount of control over how your state GOP primary is run in 2020, and that the rules are the exact same as they are in 2016. You are tasked with maximizing your state's importance in the 2020 primaries. For simplicity's sake, assume that every state other than your own holds their primary on the same day as in 2016 (it's equivalent date in 2020, anyhow). You can also assume that Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada are the first four states. What sort of primary system should you choose?

1) primary or caucus?
1a) open or closed?

2) proportional representation, winner-take-all, or winner-take-most? some other creative system of allocation?
2a) if winner-take-most, how would you assign your delegates?
PS: If you have the stomach to decipher the GOP's byzantine delegate allocation rules, you can read through them here: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R-Alloc.phtml.

3) what minimum threshold for viability?

4) will you have any loophole primary system like Pennsylvania, or whatever the hell North Dakota did?

5) what date?  Recall that any primaries before March 15th had to be proportional.

Additional questions: How does your state's composition of GOP voters affect your calculus? e.g. if you are Alabama vs. Idaho vs. Connecticut, how does that affect your choices above? It may be best to focus on a single state for this scenario.

[Derpist]

primary
open
proportional
15%

AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Caucus
Closed
Indiana/California winner take most rules
States have primary days in blocks with SEC going after California

[andrew_c]

Open primary
Proportional, 15% threshold
66.7% WTA Trigger
All delegates pledged
Early March

[Boston Bread]

I'd get rid of the whole idea of delegates.

Voters rank the candidates on their ballot, instead of choosing only 1. Whoever gets to 50%+1 after the primary is done and second choices allocated is the winner. No strings attached. Primaries are held weekly with 5 states each week, chosen randomly.

Although if I had to work within the system, a proportional delegate system, a 15% threshold, in an open primary seems the most reasonable. Although if it was a blue state I'd be tempted to make it WTA to prevent the wingnuts from taking over.

[Bigby]

1. Primary, with caucuses being so haram that you're likely to be thrown out for suggesting something so biased.
2. Open, we should be willing to accept new people.
3. WTA for whoever has the most votes, no exception.
4. See Question 3.
5. I guess my state would have to be later, though I would have all primaries be set on the same day if I could.

[SteveRogers]

Open primary. Texas doesn't have party registration, which is nice because party registration is silly and it shouldn't be the state government's job to ensure party loyalty or the ideological purity of primary voters.
Proportional based on the statewide vote. If it's Texas we've got enough delegates to make it highly proportional, so let's say a 2% threshold.
Super Tuesday.

[muon2]

Open primary. Texas doesn't have party registration, which is nice because party registration is silly and it shouldn't be the state government's job to ensure party loyalty or the ideological purity of primary voters.

Well put. If the state is paying for the primary, I don't see why the state should try to enforce the desires of a party to have only certain voters. If the party wants to pay, then they can set up a pre-registration system for their party. IL uses an open party primary for almost all races, but township party organizations may hold closed caucuses to nominate their slates for township officers.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

1. I don't have much preference between a primary or a caucus; I could live with either one.  The one thing I will say is that primaries seem to work better and easier than caucuses.  I would prefer a semi-closed primary where Independents can vote, but if my state was open primary (which my RL state is), then I would not try to challenge it. 

2. I would probably choose a system with a slate of winner-take-all delegates, plus a slate of proportional delegates allocated by congressional or legislative districts.

3. The threshold for viability would probably be 10 or 20 percent, 25 at the most.

4. I would probably provide for a small number of superdelegates/unpledged delegates.

5. I would want to have it early in the schedule, after Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, and possibly after Florida.  Super Tuesday would be the latest.

[President Johnson]

Open primary.

[muon2]

1. I don't have much preference between a primary or a caucus; I could live with either one.  The one thing I will say is that primaries seem to work better and easier than caucuses.  I would prefer a semi-closed primary where Independents can vote, but if my state was open primary (which my RL state is), then I would not try to challenge it. 

2. I would probably choose a system with a slate of winner-take-all delegates, plus a slate of proportional delegates allocated by congressional or legislative districts.

3. The threshold for viability would probably be 10 or 20 percent, 25 at the most.

4. I would probably provide for a small number of superdelegates/unpledged delegates.

5. I would want to have it early in the schedule, after Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, and possibly after Florida.  Super Tuesday would be the latest.

What is a semi-closed primary and how does it work? I'm guessing that independents would be able to vote in partisan primary. But how far back can a person have voted in a different party's primary and be independent?

If it's just about registration and declaring oneself independent, how long before the primary is the deadline to declare? One issue with the presidential primaries is that each week may have candidates drop out. When that happens, partisans for a dropped out candidate may dislike the remaining leader and want to be independent when their state holds its primary.

[Erc]

Closed primary (but with same day [re-]registration allowed).

Held on March 15.

Statewide WTA, but with ranked choice voting.  Any votes going to candidates finishing below 15% in the first-choice vote are automatically reallocated.  If no one has a majority, then reallocate the remaining lowest-placed finishers one at a time until someone does.

Gives a nice pool of delegates to the winner (encouraging a quicker resolution that doesn't go to the convention) but requiring the winner to have a broad base of support.

Candidate selects his own delegates, which are bound on the first ballot only.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

1. I don't have much preference between a primary or a caucus; I could live with either one.  The one thing I will say is that primaries seem to work better and easier than caucuses.  I would prefer a semi-closed primary where Independents can vote, but if my state was open primary (which my RL state is), then I would not try to challenge it. 

2. I would probably choose a system with a slate of winner-take-all delegates, plus a slate of proportional delegates allocated by congressional or legislative districts.

3. The threshold for viability would probably be 10 or 20 percent, 25 at the most.

4. I would probably provide for a small number of superdelegates/unpledged delegates.

5. I would want to have it early in the schedule, after Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, and possibly after Florida.  Super Tuesday would be the latest.

What is a semi-closed primary and how does it work? I'm guessing that independents would be able to vote in partisan primary. But how far back can a person have voted in a different party's primary and be independent?

If it's just about registration and declaring oneself independent, how long before the primary is the deadline to declare? One issue with the presidential primaries is that each week may have candidates drop out. When that happens, partisans for a dropped out candidate may dislike the remaining leader and want to be independent when their state holds its primary.

A semi-closed primary is where voters register with a party and can only vote in that party's primary.  However, Independents can vote in whatever primary they choose.  The news media refers to this as an "open primary," which is incorrect.  Many states automatically register Independents with the party they choose, which I oppose.

As for a deadline to change registration, I'd say that 30 days is sufficient.

[beaver2.0]

1) Closed caucus

2) Proportional representation, the precincts are divided into delegate areas that would assign delegates to the candidate that won the most precincts.

3) None.

4) No

5) February 1.

[muon2]

1. I don't have much preference between a primary or a caucus; I could live with either one.  The one thing I will say is that primaries seem to work better and easier than caucuses.  I would prefer a semi-closed primary where Independents can vote, but if my state was open primary (which my RL state is), then I would not try to challenge it. 

2. I would probably choose a system with a slate of winner-take-all delegates, plus a slate of proportional delegates allocated by congressional or legislative districts.

3. The threshold for viability would probably be 10 or 20 percent, 25 at the most.

4. I would probably provide for a small number of superdelegates/unpledged delegates.

5. I would want to have it early in the schedule, after Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, and possibly after Florida.  Super Tuesday would be the latest.

What is a semi-closed primary and how does it work? I'm guessing that independents would be able to vote in partisan primary. But how far back can a person have voted in a different party's primary and be independent?

If it's just about registration and declaring oneself independent, how long before the primary is the deadline to declare? One issue with the presidential primaries is that each week may have candidates drop out. When that happens, partisans for a dropped out candidate may dislike the remaining leader and want to be independent when their state holds its primary.

A semi-closed primary is where voters register with a party and can only vote in that party's primary.  However, Independents can vote in whatever primary they choose.  The news media refers to this as an "open primary," which is incorrect.  Many states automatically register Independents with the party they choose, which I oppose.

As for a deadline to change registration, I'd say that 30 days is sufficient.

So let me see if I understand your idea.

A person registered with a party as of 30 days before a primary may only vote in that party's primary.

A person may unregister from a party any time more than 30 days before a primary and become an independent.

An independent may choose the primary ballot for any party and remain an independent.

If that's correct, what advantage would there be for anyone who is not a party official to register with a party?

[Torie]

I like CA's jungle primary myself.

[Sir Mohamed]

I like CA's jungle primary myself.

That system is horrible.

I'd choose an open primary. Brings in the most votes. The more people participate, the better it is for democracy.

[muon2]

I like CA's jungle primary myself.

That system is horrible.

I'd choose an open primary. Brings in the most votes. The more people participate, the better it is for democracy.

Jungle primaries actually bring in more votes than traditional open primaries for races like Congress. I'm not sure that jungle primaries are applicable to delegate selection for a convention. In that case the delegates are acting as the second round of voting.

[Slander and/or Libel]

The problem with jungle primaries is that it pushes the real action of the election to a low-turnout primary.

[muon2]

The problem with jungle primaries is that it pushes the real action of the election to a low-turnout primary.

In areas dominated by one party it can do the opposite. It provides a choice in the general election when there would be no candidate or no serious candidate from the minority party.

[TJ in Oregon]

Closed primary with NY-style registration deadlines. Then WTA delegate allocation with IRV counting.

[Mr. Morden]

The problem with jungle primaries is that it pushes the real action of the election to a low-turnout primary.

I'd say just switch to IRV then.  Do away with party nominations completely, and just have every candidate compete together in a single IRV election.  No primaries.

Or at least, that could work for statewide offices.  For the presidency, it would be unworkable, unless you also junk the electoral college.

[SATW]

Primary
Closed
Proportional (15% Minimum)
55% trigger's Winner Take All
Early March Schedule (March 5th seems like a decent slot)

[Kingpoleon]

Imagine that you have a significant amount of control over how your state GOP primary is run in 2020, and that the rules are the exact same as they are in 2016. You are tasked with maximizing your state's importance in the 2020 primaries. For simplicity's sake, assume that every state other than your own holds their primary on the same day as in 2016 (it's equivalent date in 2020, anyhow). You can also assume that Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada are the first four states. What sort of primary system should you choose?

1) primary or caucus?
1a) open or closed?

2) proportional representation, winner-take-all, or winner-take-most? some other creative system of allocation?
2a) if winner-take-most, how would you assign your delegates?
PS: If you have the stomach to decipher the GOP's byzantine delegate allocation rules, you can read through them here: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R-Alloc.phtml.

3) what minimum threshold for viability?

4) will you have any loophole primary system like Pennsylvania, or whatever the hell North Dakota did?

5) what date?  Recall that any primaries before March 15th had to be proportional.

Additional questions: How does your state's composition of GOP voters affect your calculus? e.g. if you are Alabama vs. Idaho vs. Connecticut, how does that affect your choices above? It may be best to focus on a single state for this scenario.

1. Open Primary
2. Winner-take-most. 5% of delegates go to the winner, 45% of delegates are proportional statewide, 40% of delegates proportional in congressional districts(~4% in a district), 10% is divided proportionally to the winners of each district.
3. 10%
4. I'd consider a certain portion of unpledged delegates picked by the State Chair and approved by the members of the Executive Committee.
5. March 25

The more right-leaning the primary group, the more unpledged delegates under Answer 4.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

1. I don't have much preference between a primary or a caucus; I could live with either one.  The one thing I will say is that primaries seem to work better and easier than caucuses.  I would prefer a semi-closed primary where Independents can vote, but if my state was open primary (which my RL state is), then I would not try to challenge it.  

2. I would probably choose a system with a slate of winner-take-all delegates, plus a slate of proportional delegates allocated by congressional or legislative districts.

3. The threshold for viability would probably be 10 or 20 percent, 25 at the most.

4. I would probably provide for a small number of superdelegates/unpledged delegates.

5. I would want to have it early in the schedule, after Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, and possibly after Florida.  Super Tuesday would be the latest.

What is a semi-closed primary and how does it work? I'm guessing that independents would be able to vote in partisan primary. But how far back can a person have voted in a different party's primary and be independent?

If it's just about registration and declaring oneself independent, how long before the primary is the deadline to declare? One issue with the presidential primaries is that each week may have candidates drop out. When that happens, partisans for a dropped out candidate may dislike the remaining leader and want to be independent when their state holds its primary.

A semi-closed primary is where voters register with a party and can only vote in that party's primary.  However, Independents can vote in whatever primary they choose.  The news media refers to this as an "open primary," which is incorrect.  Many states automatically register Independents with the party they choose, which I oppose.

As for a deadline to change registration, I'd say that 30 days is sufficient.

So let me see if I understand your idea.

A person registered with a party as of 30 days before a primary may only vote in that party's primary.

A person may unregister from a party any time more than 30 days before a primary and become an independent.

An independent may choose the primary ballot for any party and remain an independent.

If that's correct, what advantage would there be for anyone who is not a party official to register with a party?

I don't know, but IRL, a lot of people are registered with a party in those states.