The Delegate Fight: 2016

[jimrtex]

More Iowa Analysis

Black County

County: Sanders 222 - Clinton 196 - O'Malley 1 - Uncommitted 1
State: Sanders 36 - Clinton 32 - Unallocated 1

Clinton could pick up that last delegate if both the O'Malley and Uncommitted delegates agree to support her.

Presumably this is Black Hawk County

[jimrtex]

Important going forward for the Automatic Delegates.  For states that don't specify a process for binding them, they are to be treated as At-Large delegates, according to a recent RNC memo.

The memo is nonsensical.

Rule 16(a)(1) does not clarify. Rather it makes the matter more ambiguous, opaque, and obscure.

Rule 16(b) specifically applies only to at-large and district delegates. Now it appears to be that the RNC counsel is arguing that if, state party rules and state laws do not specify how how the party delegates are to be elected, selected, allocated or bound (because traditionally they have been selected independently of the presidential process, because they are ex officio delegates to the convention), then they are covered by national party rules. And since the national party rules specify that all delegates be bound, they must be "at-large" delegates.

If 20 delegates are allocated on the basis of the popular vote it is:

Trump 7, Kasich 3, Cruz 2, Bush 2, Rubio 2, Christie 1, and Fiorina 1 (2 delegates not allocated due to truncation).

Trump gets the 2 unallocated delegates plus the Christie and Fiorina delegates, since they were below the 10% threshold.

Trump 11, Kasich 3, Cruz 2, Bush 2, Rubio 2, and 3 party delegates.

I think rounding applies to delegates, rather than percentages, in subsection II. Whole number of percentage does not make sense.

[jimrtex]

So, is the breakdown of delegates Trump:Rubio 11:2 or 10:3? The race is very close for the last delegate. The way I've calculated it, and what you have in this thread, is 11:2. But most of the media is 10:3...

Rubio is just short of 2.5, even if 23 delegates are allocated. There were 30 candidates on the ballot plus write-ins, and the allocation is to be based on the total for all candidates. They might have either not considered those votes, or decided to round the percentage to 11%.

The press was wrong in Iowa as well.

[jimrtex]

March 1 Democratic Primaries: Part II

Texas (D)

Overview
252 Delegates (5.29% of total)
Closed Primary

I wouldn't characterize Texas as being a closed primary state. Texas does not have partisan registration. Voters are restricted to participating in the nominating activities of one party, including the primary, runoff primary, and conventions. When one votes, a voter does not pledge fealty to a party, but only that they have not voted in the primary of another party. This affiliation only lasts through the remainder of the election year, and for most practical purposes through the runoff primary. Any special elections do not have partisan primaries.

Texas primaries are conducted by the political parties. On election day, the primary of each party may be held in different locations. If they are at the same location, they will be held in different rooms. A voter is quite free to go to the Republican polling place or the Democratic polling place, but not both.

Early voting, which starts tomorrow, is conducted by the county election officials. When you go to an early polling location, you will be asked which primary you wish to vote in. If you have your voter registration card (which are newly printed every two years), it will be stamped with your new affiliation.

[jimrtex]

Texas: The issue here is CD 33.  The AP count has Rubio winning a majority here (and thus all 3 delegates), while the TX SoS results would indicate Cruz winning 2 to Trump's 1.  CNN, FHQ, The Green Papers and I all side with the SoS here; the AP apparently realizes something is up with their count and hasn't called those three delegates yet.  Honestly, this looks like an AP data entry error: compare AP and SoS returns.

On election night, Rubio had been credited with 12,085 votes from the Tarrant County portion of TX-33, which pushed Rubio over 50% in the district. I looked at the results, and saw that the early voting and election day counts were way out of whack, and that there were lots more votes cast in the presidential preference primary compared to the congressional nomination race (you aren't going to have a 50%+ undervote in a contested race).

Fortunately, Tarrant County had precinct results, and I was able to figure out the precincts in the congressional district, and calculate the presidential results, which showed that Rubio had received 1285 votes. I pointed this out to the Republican Party of Tarrant County, who forwarded it to the elections administrator for Tarrant County, who acknowledged the mistake, and also corrected the results reported to the SOS.

The AP may have got their number from the SOS and not checked for updates, or got them from Tarrant County on election night. I got confirmation of the correction early on Thursday morning.

[jimrtex]

Another delegate question:

Illinois (R): March 15

Overview
69 Delegates (2.79% of total)
Open Primary
15 At-Large (Winner Take All)
54 District (directly elected)

Delegate Allocation and Selection

A presidential preference poll is on the ballot; the winner of this poll wins all 15 At-Large delegates.  12 of these are chosen at the State Convention on May 22.

Additionally, voters directly vote for 3 delegates running for a slot within their CD; the delegate candidates have their Presidential preference listed on the ballot.  All current candidates have a complete slate of delegates.  The top three delegate vote-getters in each CD get their ticket punched to Cleveland.  Voters are not obliged to vote for delegates who match the candidate they voted for in the preference poll.  Often, there are some personally popular delegate candidates who can get elected on the strength of their name alone (e.g. in 2008, Dennis Hastert, a Romney delegate, was elected in his CD despite a McCain win there in the preference poll).

In the 2012 results here on Atlas:

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2012&fips=17&f=1&off=0&elect=2

it says that in the 2012 GOP primary results in Illinois, there were 15 delegates "unallocated".  Is that a mistake?  Or does the delegate allocation process allow such a large number of unallocated delegates in Illinois?  (Were these district level delegates that expressed no presidential preference on the ballot?)  Would we be likely to see a repeat of that this time, or are the rules now different?

The rules are different. I think that this is due to a tightening of RNC rules - if you have a preference poll, you have to use it. Illinois is a bit odd in that delegate candidates appear on the ballot (along with their presidential preference), and voters vote for the delegates from their CD. They could conceivably split their vote (since three delegates are elected, each voter may cast three votes). Some voters will likely only vote for one delegate.

In 2012, two Santorum delegates won a seat because of a split vote among Romney delegate candidates. It appears that there may be some advantage to having a recognizable name. In 2012, Ethan Hastert (Dennis Hastert's son) finished quite a bit ahead of the other Romney delegate candidates. A Darrin LaHood had strong support as a Gingrich delegate. This may have cost Romney a delegate, since a Santorum candidate took the delegate slot.

In some cases, the last delegate candidate for a presidential candidate had a big drop off, in other cases the first candidate had more votes, and the other two about the same. Voters also chose the alternate delegates.

In 2012, there was a beauty contest, but it was ignored. In 2016, it will be used to pledge the statewide delegates. It appears that the delegate ballot will be down-ballot following senatorial and congressional nominations. Some voters will likely skip the delegate ballot.

If stereotypes are valid, this may hurt Trump. The Cruz campaign has probably done a better job of targeting supporters, and will make sure they understand the ballot. If Trump relies more on a mass appeal, it may be difficult to communicate the nuances.

[jimrtex]

In 2012, there was a beauty contest, but it was ignored. In 2016, it will be used to pledge the statewide delegates. It appears that the delegate ballot will be down-ballot following senatorial and congressional nominations. Some voters will likely skip the delegate ballot.

If stereotypes are valid, this may hurt Trump. The Cruz campaign has probably done a better job of targeting supporters, and will make sure they understand the ballot. If Trump relies more on a mass appeal, it may be difficult to communicate the nuances.

Do we have any numbers from either 2008 or 2012 as to how many voters voted in the beauty contest but didn't vote in the delegate election (or didn't vote for a full slate of delegates)?

The Illinois State Board of Elections has the results, but doesn't include information about undervotes, to make a definitive answer.

933,454 votes were cast in the presidential beauty contest. Since it was top of the ballot, voters would be likely to vote in that race even if they understood that it didn't matter. Presumably, there would be emphasis placed on being sure to vote in the delegate selection area, and to vote for the proper number of delegates candidates. That is a fairly complicated message, without also telling  voters that their first vote doesn't matter.

Compare - Top of the ballot:

**********************************
OR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Vote for one)

( ) TED CRUZ
**********************************

Vs. Down ballot (below US Senator, Comptroller, and US Representative)

**********************************
FOR DELEGATE TO THE
NATIONAL NOMINATING CONVENTION
SIXTEENTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
(PLEASE NOTE:  Next to the name of each candidate for delegate appears
in parentheses the candidate's preference for President of the United States
or the word "uncommitted".)
(Vote for not more than three)

( ) TIM BIVINS (CRUZ)
***********************************************

In 2012, the number of delegates per district varied from 2 to 4 (two districts had two delegates, two districts had four, and all the rest had three). So I calculated the number of votes for Republican delegate candidates in each district, divided by the number of delegate positions for the district. This provides an estimate of the number of voters who voted in the district, assuming they had voted for the maximum number of candidates.

Statewide, this gives an estimate of 810, 986 voters, or 86.9% of those who voted in the beauty contest.

We can do the same comparison for the individual candidates:

Romney: 88.5%
Paul: 102.1%
Gingrich: 116.4%
Santorum: 75.9%
Perry: 4.4% (one delegate candidate)
Roemer: 8.9% (delegate candidate slate in only one district)

Romney, Paul, and Gingrich had complete slates. Santorum did not have slates in 4 of 18 districts, but they were relatively small, with perhaps 10% of the vote. It is reasonable to assume that many of his supporters voted for Gingrich delegates, since by that point it was mainly a Romney-Santorum contest. It would be reasonable for Santorum campaigner to suggest voting for Gingrich delegates in those districts.

The beauty contest was Romney 46.7%, Santorum 35.0%, Paul 9.3%, Gingrich 8.0%, Perry 0.6%, and Roemer 0.4%.

In IL-13 the delegate vote share was Romney 52.3%, Paul 20.5%, Gingrich 27.2%
In IL-7 Romney 66.4%, Paul 18.3%, Gingrich 15.4%
In IL-5 Romney 64.6%, Paul 19.6%, Gingrich 15.7%
In IL-4 Romney 56.0%, Paul 24.3%, Gingrich 19.7%

So all candidates overperformed in these areas. Note that IL-13 had about half the total Republican votes. It is a competitive district (part of the Illinois Democratic dummymander) including parts of Springfield, and thus likely to have an appreciable Republican presence in the primary. In the other 3 districts, there may have been little effort to reach Republican voters, and Romney delegates may have picked up more of the Santorum support.

If we compare the total vote for Santorum-Paul-Gingrich delegate candidates vs the three candidates in the beauty contest we get 85.1%, slightly lower than Romney, and likely reflecting leakage from Santorum supporters in the four districts.

I also looked at the sum of the votes for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th candidates for each district. They vary, but in no consistent pattern. If voters were voting for one delegate, it was not necessarily for the first one. There is some personal voting for individual candidates:

Dan Rutherford (Illinois Treasurer) received 20% more than the other Romney delegates.
Ethan Hastert (former speaker Dennis Hastert's son) received 11% more than the other Romney delegates.
Darrin LaHood (former Ray LaHood's son) received 60% more than the other Gingrich delegates. Darrin LaHood, since a 2015 special election is now the representative for the district.
Richard Grabowski who was also seeking a congressional nomination received 20% more than the other Santorum delegates.

We can also compare the delegate vote to the congressional nomination vote. It appears that there is a fairly consistent relationship in votes cast:

(1) Presidential beauty contest;

(2) Contested congressional nomination where Republican nominee was competitive (IL-12, IL-13, IL-16). All three districts are now Republican held.

(3T) Contested congressional nomination where Republican nominee has little hope (IL-1, IL-2, IL-3).
(3T) Delegate.

(5) Uncontested congressional nomination. An incumbent will do a little better.

So let's take the typical district with 3 delegates. We'll assume that every voter voted in the beauty contest. Most. but not all would vote for either three delegates, or one delegate, but not two (assumption by me).

If none voted for one delegate then it would be about:

100% beauty contest.
88% 3 delegates.
0% 1 delegate.

To make up for a 1% drop in those voting for three delegates we have to add 3% to the one delegate districts. For example:

100% beauty contest.
87% 3 delegates.
3% 1 delegate.

The latter two categories can not exceed 100% combined so the upper limit is:

100% beauty contest.
82% 3 delegates
18% 1 delegate.

If we assume that a voter who votes for delegates votes for three delegates 90% of the time, then the best solution is:

********************
100% beauty contest.

85% 3 delegates
9% 1 delegate
6% 0 delegates.
********************

Factors to consider tomorrow. There is a wide variation in Republican voters per district (roughly 10:1, 84K v 8K). All districts choose 3 delegates in 2016.

A typical Republican voter in a heavily Democratic district in Chicago is not a typical voter.  If it is a black district, they might be among the few black Republicans. If they are white, they might be living in a safe highrise (this might be an advantage for Kasich or Rubio). But Kasich doesn't have a full set of delegates. In IL-4 (the Hispanic, earmuffs district) there might be some residual white working class Republicans, who might vote for Trump. Since all Puerto Ricans are US citizens, this might be an advantage for Rubio or Cruz, except most voters are Democrats.

It might be easier to get voters to vote in both the presidential preference poll and the delegate selection, since it easier to say "be sure to vote for both, both determine delegates" and say it with conviction. In 2012 you might have to say "it is important to vote for both", but if you started explaining why it gets confusing.

[jimrtex]

A typical Republican voter in a heavily Democratic district in Chicago is not a typical voter.  If it is a black district, they might be among the few black Republicans. If they are white, they might be living in a safe highrise (this might be an advantage for Kasich or Rubio). But Kasich doesn't have a full set of delegates. In IL-4 (the Hispanic, earmuffs district) there might be some residual white working class Republicans, who might vote for Trump. Since all Puerto Ricans are US citizens, this might be an advantage for Rubio or Cruz, except most voters are Democrats.

Where is Kasich missing delegates?  Looking at this list, I see 3 Kasich delegate candidates per district in every district.

I misread an article that said he didn't have enough signatures. In Illinois, a petition is presumed valid unless someone challenges it. He allegedly did not have enough signatures in six districts.

[jimrtex]

A typical Republican voter in a heavily Democratic district in Chicago is not a typical voter.  If it is a black district, they might be among the few black Republicans. If they are white, they might be living in a safe highrise (this might be an advantage for Kasich or Rubio). But Kasich doesn't have a full set of delegates. In IL-4 (the Hispanic, earmuffs district) there might be some residual white working class Republicans, who might vote for Trump. Since all Puerto Ricans are US citizens, this might be an advantage for Rubio or Cruz, except most voters are Democrats.

Where is Kasich missing delegates?  Looking at this list, I see 3 Kasich delegate candidates per district in every district.

I realized that you could get a better estimate by looking at counties that are contained  within a single congressional district, since the beauty contest and the delegate contests cover the same areas. Unfortunately, Illinois CD's chop counties a lot.

LaSalle County (just outside the Chicago Metro) is entirely in IL-16. The delegate vote (divided by three) was 81.5% of the beauty contest vote. The alternate delegate vote count was 79.0%.

[jimrtex]

This suggests that 40(b) only applied to the 2012 convention.

GOP insiders: Nominee won't be limited to winner of 8 states

Maybe there is some rule where the the rules from the previous convention, unless they are changed?

[jimrtex]

This suggests that 40(b) only applied to the 2012 convention.

GOP insiders: Nominee won't be limited to winner of 8 states

Maybe there is some rule where the the rules from the previous convention, unless they are changed?

Any rules changes still need to be approved by the convention as a whole.  The Rules Committee can propose any changes it wants, but it would still need to be approved by a vote (albeit probably a voice vote) of all the delegates at the convention.  The fact that it's a voice vote gives Paul Ryan some power here, but a roll call vote may be requested if majorities of 15 state delegations do so.

Assuming Cruz wins 8 states, both he and Trump may well have an interest in keeping Rule 40 as it is (plus they have the media-friendly argument that you shouldn't change the rules in the middle of the game), so I do not believe we can dismiss Rule 40 entirely.

The rules in the Call to the 2016 Republican National Convention still apply unless changed by a (voice) vote of the delegates at the convention.

40b was enacted at the 2012 convention to keep Paul from being nominated.

If it is changed, it will be because it is advantageous to those supporting the change.

If it is changed, it will be argued by the proponents that the convention should not be tied to a previous convention. The losers will whine that the rules shouldn't be changed in midstream. That will persuade about 0.7% of delegates to switch to no.

If it is changed, it will be argued by the proponents that rules shouldn't be changed at this late date. The losers will whine that the convention should not be tied to a previous convention. That will persuade about 0.3% of delegates to switch to yes.

[jimrtex]

Is it right for the media/Atlas to color Wyoming for Cruz already? I know he won the county conventions but there are still 17 delegates left to award. Is the state convention based off of the county convention results (like in Iowa for the Dems) or are they just assuming Cruz will win?

The delegates to the state convention were elected at the county conventions.

[jimrtex]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cruz is picking up Trump delegates bound to him on the first ballot. I'm not sure how many total he has so far, but he's getting to the point where it's possible if Cruz fights it out to the convention and does well, that he could win on the second ballot.

He's also picking up a few here and there on the first ballot, mostly Rubio's.

Once Cruz picks up 200+ of Trump's second ballots then the game becomes much more interesting.

In Texas, nobody answers the phone at Trump HQ, and the state organizer hasn't been heard from.

[jimrtex]

So if Trump clinches on the 1st ballot but Cruz has a majority on the floor in Cleveland, Cruz effectively gets to set the 2020 delegate rules, right?  And he would obviously consider himself the next-in-line for the nomination.  So look for Texas to have 750 delegates awarded WTA to the statewide winner in 2020, while the all of the Northeast states combined get to elect 200 formally unpledged delegates at conventions, with convention meetings to be held from 1-7 am on a Monday morning in the least populous county in each state?

In the primary yesterday, Democrats received 66.4% of the vote in  Rhode Island; 66.0% in Maryland; 60.7% in Connecticut; 57.7% in Delaware; and 51.5% in Pennsylvania.

Why should any of the states other than Pennsylvania have any delegates?

[jimrtex]

Right now it seems like allocation is roughly weighted more in favor of safe Republican states.

Well..."weighted more in favor of safe Republican states".  The existing allocation formula is rather screwy, sure, but I should note that if you allocated the delegates to make the electoral power per primary voter equal, you would in fact have more delegates in more Republican states, since there are more Republicans there.  Makes sense that Florida gets more delegates than New York, even though they have similar population.  There are more Republican voters in Florida.  And the reverse for the Dems.  More Dem. voters in New York, so more delegates there for the Dems makes sense.

And actually, the much bigger discrepancy comes with respect to how delegates are allocated within states.  At least the Dems allocate different numbers of delegates to different congressional districts, based on party strength in the CD.  Most of the states on the Republican side give three delegates to every CD, even if there are a tiny number of Republican voters there.  This means that Republicans living in heavily Democratic CDs have vastly more power than those living in Republican CDs.  Harry Enten talks about that here:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-right-that-the-gop-primary-is-unfair-it-favors-him/

New York's Republican turnout is 12th among states so far, behind, PA, OH, MI, IL, WI, MO, VA, NC, GA, FL, and TX.

It barely topped AL, TN, and SC.

It will probably be topped by Indiana, Washington, and California.