Every four years we have to witness a fracas between the Republican National Committee and/or the Democratic National Committee and state legislatures who want to move their primaries up in violation of the rules. Remember the ugly dispute between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters over the delegates from Michigan and Florida? It wasn’t pleasant. This year, the same thing is happening to the Republicans. And it’s quite likely to have a dominant impact on the nominating process, and perhaps even the general election.
The Republicans selected Tampa, Florida as host to their convention. Yet, Florida’s legislature has moved their primary to January 31st, 2012. The rules say that any state other than Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada that moves its primary earlier than March 6th will have half its delegates stripped. Needless to say, it’s awkward to have the convention host in violation of the rules. And, as you can see, Florida’s decision upsets the whole apple cart:
The four carve-out states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina may begin their processes any time on or after February 1, 2012.
The remainder of the states may begin no earlier than the first Tuesday of March 2012.
Any state (other than the four carve-out states) that conducts its process prior to April 1, 2012, must allocate its delegates on a proportional basis.
Any state that violates this Rule will lose 50% of its delegates, alternate-delegates and potentially face many other penalties.
The four carve-out states will respond by moving their contests into early January and we’ll have a repeat of active campaigns during the holiday season. The RNC tried to prevent this by creating two incentives. The first incentive was the promise to strip 50% of the delegates of any state that violated the rules. The second incentive was to force any state that went earlier than April 1st to allocate their delegates on a proportional rather than winner-take-all basis.
So, for example, Florida would not only lose half its delegates but the winner would only get, most likely, a plurality of the state’s votes at the convention. Florida is supposed to have roughly one hundred delegates. You can do the math. In a winner-take-all situation the winner would net 100 delegates. The situation now would make it more likely that the winner would get around 20 delegates and the second-place finisher something like 15, netting the winner a mere five votes.
Update [2011-9-29 12:25:10 by BooMan]: As Massappeal points out, my argument/math here is wrong.
The difference should be enough to dissuade Florida from breaking the rules, but they seem to be operating on the assumption that nominations are won not through accruing delegates but by winning perceptions. They should ask Hillary Clinton how that worked out for her.
Moreover, Florida isn’t the only state moving up its date.
This comes on the heels of Michigan and Arizona moving their contests to Feb. 28 in an attempt to get a heads-up on the March 6 Super Tuesday primaries.
And Missouri, Alaska, Georgia and North Dakota have all made noise about moving up their dates, which could wreak additional havoc on the calendar.
The more states that move up into the proportional representation window, the harder it will be for any candidate to get a majority of the delegates. Candidates might run out of money, but they will not be mathematically eliminated. And, as long as a winner has not emerged, minor candidates who are actually winning some delegates will have a powerful incentive to stay in the race so that they can trade their delegates for something of value.
If the race remains mainly a two-way race between Romney and Perry, this will probably resolve itself once the winner-take-all states start tossing huge chunks of delegates one way or the other. But if a third candidate emerges who is keeping pace and even winning a state here and there, then we could easily see a brokered convention.
If I’m reading the rule that you quoted correctly, that would also cause Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and SC to lose 50% of their delegates (though it seems to preserve their winner-take-all status).
I don’t doubt that Iowa and NH will move their caucus/primary – the economic incentives for those states are huge. I wonder if Nevada and SC will hang back until Feb. 1st to preserve the winner-take-all aspect or not though.
I am almost 100% sure that you’re reading the rules wrong. It is understood that the four carve-out states reserve the right to maintain the privileged status. If they were to move without cause, then you’d be right, but they’ll get a waiver.
A word on proportional allocation as defined by the RNC: As I understand it, state Republican parties have great latitude in determining what “proportional allocation” means. Take Florida for example.
Florida has 99 delegates to the Republican convention. 84 are “automatic” (superdelegates) or “district” delegates. 15 are “base” or “bonus” delegates.
The “proportional allocation” rule applies only to “base” and “bonus” delegates. So if, for example, Perry gets 33% of the Florida primary vote, Romney gets 32% and other candidates split the remaining votes, then (if I understand this correctly) Perry would get about 89 delegates: all of the “automatic” and “district” delegates (which are winner-take-all) and 1/3 of the “base” and “bonus” delegates, while Romney would get about 5 delegates and the rest would be split among the remaining candidates.
See FrontloadingHQ.com for more: http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2011/09/myth-of-republican-presidential-primary.html
Booman, I agree a brokered convention is possible—particularly if there’s a third viable candidate (the 3Q FEC reports coming out next month will be an important indicator), or even if Perry v. Romney is as close as Clinton v. Obama was. But the delegate selection rules aren’t a simple either/or (winner-take-all/proportional allocation) situation.
If one of the Republican campaigns understands the rules better than the others do, then that campaign would have a better chance of winning a close race (like Obama’s campaign understood that winning the Idaho caucuses could be as valuable as winning the New Jersey primary).
Ah, that is good to know. I did not realize that it didn’t apply on the district-level. That lessens the impact dramatically, particularly in large states like Florida. Thanks for the correction.
You’re welcome. It’s complicated. I had to read that FrontloadingHQ post several times to figure it out.
It seems like one effect of the proportional allocation rule is that small states (e.g., MS & VT) tend to have a higher percentage of delegates subject to proportional allocation—which could make those states better investments for underdog candidates looking to demonstrate viability (assuming they stay in the race that long).
Then there are states like TN and TX—which allocate statewide and congressional district delegates proportionally unless one candidate gets a majority of votes cast (statewide or in a congressional district)—in which case that candidate wins all the delegates in that jurisdiction. (Romney might want to pay Ron Paul, for example, to stay in the race for the Texas primary just to try to block Perry from sweeping the state’s delegate slate.)
there is not enough popcorn on earth for a brokered GOP convention…that is the best possible scenario for dems, as it would be a three ring circus of Crazy. Oh please god let this happen.
Yep. The tea baggers will never broker/compromised their values to move the nomination process forward.
So what happens when the 2 frontrunners (Romney and a doofus TBD) each arrive in Tampa with 40%-45% of the delegates?
Using the new proportional representation rules, Ron Paul should have 5%-10%. Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich could easily have 1%-3% each. Even a sprinkling for Huntsman, Johnson, Cain.
Whoever got the most Florida delegates is going to follow Hillary Clinton’s footsteps: insist that true democracy cannot allow the state’s votes to be halved.
Everyone else will follow Obama’s approach: rules are rules, and Florida chose this path.
Of course, Clinton and Obama are both sane. At least one of the GOP frontrunners will not be sane. And many delegates have the Rethug’s Congressional-level expertise at obstruction baked into their tactical DNA.
Wouldn’t it be fun to watch Republicans fight, in Tampa, broadcast nationwide, about whether Florida is entitled to more than 50% of its allotted delegates?
Herman Cain at the podium: “Even slaves got counted for 60%!” Oh, please!
Bonus fun. If the candidate who fought for 50% is nominated, imagine the fun general election campaign of someone who has argued forcefully for Florida’s right to lose half its votes!
I dunno. they’re so authoritarian, and a brokered convention doesn’t fit them. I keep on bringing up this point that just came to me this week. OCTOBER IS HERE.
the first caucus is in JANUARY.
that’s it. how the hell they’re still looking for candidates is beyond me
moving your state closer to New Hampshire makes New Hampshire more important, not less important.
If you look at history within 48 hours of New Hampshire the winner usually explodes to a significant national lead. The effect of New Hampshire wanes over time, but it takes time. If you have a series of events right on the heels of New Hampshire, they will wind up ratifying the NH winner.
The effect of NH is also to destroy the ability of the non-winning candidates to raise money.
A brokered convention is only likely if youhave candidates with regional strengths.
I think that unlikely.
The likely scenario, I foresee:
Two front runners, Romney, Perry(or whoever)should emerge by April. Ron Paul and his seasoned and trained delegates will be @ 15 to 20 % in Tampa, definitly more than the proportionate votes in the primary and caucuses (remember, they captured Nevada convention, despite polling 12 % last cycle).
Either of the front-runner will have to cut deals with Paul.
Ron Paul would insist more on changing the Party platform ideologically, rather than accepting deals for future cabinet slots, thereby ensuring the defeat of the nominee in the general or a VP slot for Sen. Rand.
Either way a clear path for Sen. from Ky.,in 2016.