2012 primary calendar leapfrogging already getting started w/ move by MD GOP?

[Mr. Morden]

link:

http://www.politickermd.com/danielreiter/4280/will-maryland-gop-be-first-nation

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Meanwhile, Jim Geraghty of National Review points out that the incoming RNC chairman will have the power to appoint the majority of the members of a commission that will present a list of possible reforms to the GOP primary process.  Any proposals presented by the commission will have to be approved by the full RNC in 2010:

link

It should be noted that, among the RNC chair candidates, Saul Anuzis is accused by some of being a stalking horse for Romney 2012, and Chip Saltsman (former campaign manager for Huckabee) is accused by some of being a stalking horse for Huckabee 2012.  So if either of them becomes RNC chair, their appointments to this committee will be scrutinized in the light of how it helps their alleged preferred candidates get a favorable primary calendar.

[Хahar 🤔]

Leapfrogging?

Hasn't anyone learned?

[Lunar]

Yeah, the Maryland GOP... I don't think they have much national clout unless Steele wins.  But even then, I mean, look who they elect state-wide!   It doesn't have a "heartland of America" feel to it...

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Already? Someone's rather bored over there.

[politicaltipster]

Some likely reforms:

1) A lot more caucuses, closed primaries and conventions
2) Presidential delegates free to vote against nominee's preferred running mate
3) Running mate has to be a registered Republican 'in good standing'
4) Proportional Representation and decreased delegates for 'blue' states.

[Verily]

     Already? Someone's rather bored over there.

What else do you do if you're a Republican in Maryland?

[Jacobtm]

4) Proportional Representation and decreased delegates for 'blue' states.

Letting the deep south and the mid-west choose your candidate probably won't generate the best candidate to win Colorado or Virginia nowadays, and soon it may not even be enough to carry Montana or Arizona...

[Mr. Morden]

4) Proportional Representation and decreased delegates for 'blue' states.

Letting the deep south and the mid-west choose your candidate probably won't generate the best candidate to win Colorado or Virginia nowadays, and soon it may not even be enough to carry Montana or Arizona...

To be clear, both parties already give delegate bonuses to states based on "party strength"....if you have states with equal populations, then the more Democratic state gets more delegates than the more Republican one at the Democratic convention, and the reverse is true at the GOP convention.  This is only fair, since the more Democratic state is going to have more Democrats in it, and the more Republican state is going to have more Republicans in it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Already? Someone's rather bored over there.

What else do you do if you're a Republican in Maryland?

     Jockey for the one remaining House seat they can win over there?

[Jacobtm]

To be clear, both parties already give delegate bonuses to states based on "party strength"....if you have states with equal populations, then the more Democratic state gets more delegates than the more Republican one at the Democratic convention, and the reverse is true at the GOP convention.  This is only fair, since the more Democratic state is going to have more Democrats in it, and the more Republican state is going to have more Republicans in it.

Of course it's the status quo, but further penalizing "blue" states, especially when that means Virginia, Nevada, Ohio and Florida, would really put Republicans in a ridiculous situation where they're shooting themselves in the food.

[Mr. Morden]

To be clear, both parties already give delegate bonuses to states based on "party strength"....if you have states with equal populations, then the more Democratic state gets more delegates than the more Republican one at the Democratic convention, and the reverse is true at the GOP convention.  This is only fair, since the more Democratic state is going to have more Democrats in it, and the more Republican state is going to have more Republicans in it.

Of course it's the status quo, but further penalizing "blue" states, especially when that means Virginia, Nevada, Ohio and Florida, would really put Republicans in a ridiculous situation where they're shooting themselves in the food.

I agree, but I wasn't sure if politicaltipster knew that this was already part of the status quo.  If he does, and he thinks the "party strength" bonus in the delegate allocation formula should be further enhanced, then yeah, I agree that that's a dumb idea.

[Erc]

To be clear, both parties already give delegate bonuses to states based on "party strength"....if you have states with equal populations, then the more Democratic state gets more delegates than the more Republican one at the Democratic convention, and the reverse is true at the GOP convention.  This is only fair, since the more Democratic state is going to have more Democrats in it, and the more Republican state is going to have more Republicans in it.

Of course it's the status quo, but further penalizing "blue" states, especially when that means Virginia, Nevada, Ohio and Florida, would really put Republicans in a ridiculous situation where they're shooting themselves in the food.

I agree, but I wasn't sure if politicaltipster knew that this was already part of the status quo.  If he does, and he thinks the "party strength" bonus in the delegate allocation formula should be further enhanced, then yeah, I agree that that's a dumb idea.

For reference, if the system were to go unchanged from now until 2012, this is how bonus delegates would operate:

2008 Bonus: States voting for McCain get a bonus of 4.5 + (State's EV's) * 0.6, fractions rounded up.  [Nebraska's CD2 defection is irrelevant here].

US Senate:  1 Bonus delegate for each Republican Senator elected in the years 2006 - 2011 (Limit 2).   
[Note that this can include special elections...Jim Talent's election in 2002 still gave MO a bonus delegate despite his loss in 2006]

US Governor:  1 Bonus delegate for a Republican Governor elected in the years 2008 - 2011.

US House:  1 Bonus delegate for having 50% or more of the state's House delegation be Republican as a result of an election held in the years 2008 - 2011.

State House:  1 Bonus delegate per chamber elected with a Republican majority in the years 2008 - 2011 (Limit 2).
[Note 1: in order to receive the full 2 point bonus, both chambers must be controlled by Republicans simultaneously.]
[Note 2: Being presided over by a Republican counts equally well, so if the New York Senate, say, ends up with a Republican presiding officer, that counts]
[Note 3: Nebraska's single chamber is officially non-partisan, so Nebraska gets zero points regardless.]

[Joe Biden 2020]

It looks like this could get very fun very quickly. I think both parties need to come together and decide on a primary calendar for each, as well as rules regarding leapfrogging, etc. The only way the system will reform is through a bipartisan effort to keep the states in line. Otherwise we are only bound to get another Florida/Michigan mess.

This time probably a whole lot bigger.

I propose giving both parties the SAME primary calendar to avoid confusion on the part of the voter who isn't paying attention to the presidential race by the end of 2011.  It should also be cheaper for the each state to hold both primaries on the same day by avoiding double expense for all that goes into holding a primary vote.

[Erc]

Illustration of the current rules:

For a hypothetical Presidential Primary held in 2009:

Bonus Delegates:

Total Delegates:

[for clarity: CT has 29, RI 20, DC 19, DE 18, and HI 20.  Not shown on the map are American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, and the Virgin Islands (9 each) and Puerto Rico (23)].

Obviously, the Presidential bonus delegates do favor the McCain states, a tendency seen clearly in the small states (Alaska and Oregon have the same number of delegates, for example).  But the bonus really isn't that large---it's 5.7 + 0.6 * (# of CDs).  Compare this to the base number of delegates: 13 + 3 * (# of CDs), and you see, especially for larger states, the bonus isn't inordinately large (ranging from 23% for Texas to 44% to Alaska).

Run the 2008 election on those numbers (and throwing 3 NE delegates to Obama), Obama still wins 1399 - 980.  (Normalized to 538 delegates, that's 316 - 222 Obama.  A tighter win, but still a convincing win for Obama).


There will obviously be changes in the above numbers over the next 3 years, regardless of any rules changes.

Redistricting in 2010 will affect the number of district delegates each state gets.  Each state is entitled to 3 delegates per CD, so delegates will change appropriately after those results are in.  Redistricting will not affect the bonus delegates awarded for voting for McCain, as those are based on the 2008 electoral vote.

Any gains of Senators, Governors, state House delegations, or State legislative chambers between now and the end of 2011 will get the affected states a bonus delegate a piece.

Any losses in the 2010 Senate elections, or the 2009/10/11 Gubernatorial elections, will cost the affected states a delegate a piece.

Certain losses in 2007 and 2008 will cost certain states:  
AZ, MI, MS, NV, NM, OH, and VA each lose a delegate as the Democrats gained majority control of each state's House delegation.
DE, MS, NV, NY, OH, VA, and WI each lose a delegate as the Republicans lost majority control of a chamber each state's legislature.

[Erc]

Note that the Republicans haven't necessarily learned the lesson that "leapfrogging is bad" that the Democrats in MI/FL learned.

Michigan and Florida had very prominent roles to play on the Republican side---the halving of delegates really had little effect on the media coverage, which was what mattered.  Michigan revived Romney's campaign, and McCain's win in Florida made his nomination all but a fait accompli (and its existence allowed Giuliani to commit suicide---imagine if Florida had been stripped of delegates?  Then Giuliani may have actually tried in January, or may have hung on until February 5th and stolen a number of votes from McCain...).