FairVote Feed: Presidential Nominations Reform

The 2012 GOP Nomination Contest Affirms Value of New Rules

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:07:10 -0700

Rick Santorum’s decision to suspend his campaign effectively handed the Republican nomination to Mitt Romney. Although several states have yet to vote and Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul remain in the race, Romney is sure to win an easy victory at the Republican convention, absent a major controversy.

Before pundits rush on to talk of the general election and its dwindling number of swing states, however, we should reflect on the nomination contest and the impact of its rules. In 2010, the Republican National Committee (RNC) changed its rules in order to delay the start of voting, to discourage the frontloading of state contests, and to allocate early states’ delegates by proportional representation instead of winner-take-all.

Despite the usual anti-democracy talk of insiders who wished Romney could have eliminated his competition after just a few states had voted, the Republican National Committee’s Rules Committee this week handily rejected proposals to go back to a more compressed schedule full of winner-take-all primaries. As the New York Times reported:

Morton Blackwell, a member from Virginia, also opposed the change. He said that the longer process, made possible by proportional voting, made it possible for more states to consider the candidates. “We have had a full vetting as a result of the rules,” Mr. Blackwell said.

We agree that the new rules are a big improvement over the 2008 rules. But we would encourage Republicans, as well as Democrats, to consider further improvements that will ensure future nomination contests balance the goals of freedom of choice, maximum participation, and success in nominating a representative candidate.

The Republican Journey

Certainly, the 2012 Republican primary was replete with drama—either comedic or tragic, depending on your perspective. It featured a colorful cast of characters, with nearly each one getting his or her moment on the national stage. Yet despite a series of unexpected surges and retreats, the outcome was rarely in serious question. The Coronation of Mitt Romney was less about the outcome than the journey.

Relative to the GOP’s contest in 2008, the 2012 battle for the Republican nomination was a protracted affair that continually oscillated back and forth, with Romney gaining momentum only to see it subsequently fizzle after surges for Santorum or Gingrich. As the race settled into a marathon, Romney embraced delegate math to prove his continued inevitability. Though grassroots Republicans in many states exulted at their chance to weigh in, establishment Republicans fretted over the odds of a brokered convention and a divided party. With the media’s relentless handicapping of the race and all-consuming focus on “who’s up and who’s down,” many overlooked the benefits of a drawn out process: that more voters in more states were getting the chance to cast a meaningful vote in a Republican primary.

There can be little doubt that the meta-narrative of the 2012 Republican primary was the way in which Romney—despite an unrivaled ground operation, a redoubtable financial war chest, the powerful services of an “uncoordinated” Super PAC, the backing of the party establishment, and polls that designated him as the most competitive Republican against Obama—struggled. The question is why—and whether the process did more to rally the party around Romney than would have a quick knockout victory. As we turn to the general election, the answer to this question could be very important.

Competing Theories: Romney was Weakened by Proportional Rules or by Being Romney

The Inside-the-Beltway explanation of Romney’s troubles insists that the RNC’s embrace of more proportional allocation of delegates for early contests undermined Romney. As such, the 2012 GOP primary was longer than usual because new rules allowed Romney’s opponents to earn delegates in states that, before, would have gone as a winner-take-all unit to the victor. Proponents of this theory made up for their lack of rigor in looking at real numbers with emphatic opinion.

The alternative explanation focuses on Romney himself—in part his tendency for gaffs and being workmanlike more than inspirational, but more fundamentally the question of whether his faith (as a Mormon) and New England brand of Republicanism were too much to inspire some conservatives to back him this spring and work hard for him in the fall. In particular, Romney faced challenges due to a history of more socially moderate positions and his leadership in enacting a state-based version of President Obama’s health care plan.

As such, the 2012 GOP nomination contest was longer than usual because the overwhelming favorite had trouble connecting with the party base. According to Gallup, the percentage of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents saying they would “vote enthusiastically” for Romney (35%) trails numbers from 2008 for McCain among Republicans (47%) and Obama among Democrats (54%). FairVote analysis found that, with all his advantages, “Romney 2012” struggled repeatedly to match the vote shares “Romney 2008” had posted four years ago, besting his old self in barely half (just 10 of 19) of states. The Washington Post’s Dan Balz fingered one particularly revealing statistic: in every primary or caucus with an exit poll, Romney lost when more than half of respondents were white evangelical Christians and won when fewer than half of respondents were white evangelical Christians.

When examining the data, the argument that the RNC’s new proportional rules harmed Romney crumbles. First, FairVote’s analysis shows that the effect of proportional delegate allocation on Romney’s totals was a wash; Romney shed nearly as many delegates to his challengers in states he won as he gained from states he lost†. Indeed his actual share of delegates (52%) is far closer to what would have happened with the same vote totals and pure winner-take-all (53%) than with pure proportionality (39%), primarily due to “quirks” in state rules caused by the RNC’s “loose definition” of what constitutes proportional allocation.

The evidence instead suggests that Romney’s struggles resulted from his inability to connect with Republican voters. Public opinion polls during the nomination contest often showed a majority of Republican voters were dissatisfied with their party’s candidates. But by proving his mettle, winning key states, and adjusting his rhetoric, Romney seems to have earned far more respect and support among Republicans.

The latest polls now show a majority of Republicans now welcomes Romney as the nomine, and several polls of the general election contest, including a New York Times poll, show him even with Barack Obama and a Gallup poll showing 90% of Republicans say they will back him. Although some pundits still grumble that having to work hard for the nomination has tarnished his candidacy and increased his negatives by forcing him to highlight more conservative positions, it’s clear that Romney has become a more representative Republican nominee—and that he may win in November.

How to Make the Nomination Process Better

Looking forward, we would suggest a few simple changes to the rules, based on this year’s contest—not necessarily our ideal plan, but one that we could see Republicans and Democrats adopting in 2016:

Make it clear that any state violating the proposed schedule in 2016 will lose all its delegates: This change is almost certainly the only way to stop Florida from again violating the party’s plan to have the first states vote in February.
Enforce stricter proportionality in contests held before April 1: Too many states like Florida used winner-take-all in early contests despite the 2010 rules, and many states that used proportionality employed mixed, quirky forms that still created substantial distortions in voter preferences. (Note that the Democrats wisely use proportional representaiton for all presidential nomination contests.)
Adopt ranked choice ballots to handle fractured votes: Due to the media’s obsession with “winning,” we should allow voters to cast ranked choice ballots, which would allow us to determine which of the vote-leaders would have won if matched one-on-one against his or her top opponent.
Adopt ranked choice ballots to handle overseas voters: Ranked choice ballots at least should be cast by overseas voters so they don’t end up having their ballots count for a candidate who has dropped out since mailing in their ballot.

Be sure to stay with FairVote as the general election between Mitt Romney and President Obama heats up. If you missed our unique analysis of the 2012 GOP nomination battle, you can find links to pertinent materials below:

GOP 2012 Primary Race Results: Resource compares each candidate’s share of the popular vote to his or her share of RNC delegates, state-by-state
Romney 2012 vs. Romney 2008: Resource explores how this year’s Romney performed relative to his 2008 self; in most states, Romney 2012 struggled to match Romney 2008
Paul 2012 vs. Paul 2008: Resource explores how this year’s Ron Paul performed relative to his 2008 self; in the vast majority of states, Paul 2012 bested Paul 2008
Romney Delegate Total Nearly Matches Total if All Contests Winner-Take-All: Resource examines the way in which Romney’s delegate total, rather than reflecting pure proportional allocation, was nearly identical to what would have resulted under pure winner-take-all rules
RNC Proportional Rules Not Hurting Romney: Resource rebuts claims by Romney surrogate Chris Christie that the RNC’s proportional allocation of delegates has damaged Romney
The Florida Republican Primary and the Effects of its Rule Breaking: Resource looks at the consequences of Florida’s decision to use winner-take-all for its allocation of delegates
Ranked Choice Voting and the GOP: Resource discusses the way in which RCV could assist the Republican Party in achieving majority consensus over the choice of its nominee
Understanding Proportional Representation in New Hampshire: Resource delves into the proportional rules of the nation’s first primary to make sense of how the new process works
Iowa and New Hampshire’s First in the Nation Status Unfair to Other States: Resource discusses the consequences of having the same two states go first in every presidential election
Understanding How the Iowa Caucuses Work -- and Don’t Work: Resource places the Iowa caucuses in context and clears up existing misconceptions
GOP Primary Rules All Over the Place: Resource details the way in which new RNC rules vary between states, creating confusion for both voters and researchers

† This includes the Missouri primary, a non-binding contest that Rick Santorum won on February 7. The other 12 states are as follows: Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

Paul vs. Paul

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:12:22 -0800

The majority of media attention in the 2012 Republican nomination contest is (rightly so) on the current race among Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul, but it's also instructive to compare Paul to another candidate: himself, circa 2008.

In the battle of "Paul vs. Paul," who has performed better? At present, this year’s Paul is outpacing significantly his counterpart from four years ago. Of the 31* contests held thus far, Paul 2012 has bested Paul 2008 in 29 (93.5%). One exception—Idaho—warrants a caveat: in 2008, the state voted in May, by which time just two candidates, Paul and John McCain, remained in the race. In 2012, Idaho was still a four candidate race. The other contest, Puerto Rico, is a similar story.

* In our totals, we exclude Hawaii and Wyoming, which did not hold or report preference votes in 2008. Instead, the Republican Party selected delegates that would go on to represent the state at the convention. As such, Paul’s total is out of 31, not 33.

Number of States in which Paul 2012 has Bested Paul 2008: 29
Number of States in which Paul 2008 has Bested Paul 2012: 2

Paul vs Paul (update, 04.04.12)

View more presentations from kkellyfv

Romney vs. Romney

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:13:07 -0800

In the battle of "Romney vs. Romney," who has performed better? At present, this year’s Romney is struggling to match the vote shares his counterpart posted four years ago, as Romney 2012 has bested Romney 2008 in just 10 of19* contests (52.6%) thus far. In the remaining nine states, Romney 2008 garnered the larger share of the vote.

* Mitt Romney ended his campaign four years ago on February 7, 2008. In our overall count, we eliminate states that held their primaries or caucuses after this date. In some, Romney did not appear on the ballot, while in others, he did not wage an active campaign. Of the 33 states that have voted thus far in 2012, 12 meet this criteria. Another two—Wyoming and Hawaii—did not hold or report preference votes in 2008; instead, the Republican Party selected delegates to represent the state at the convention. As such, Romney’s total is out of 19, not 33.

Number of States in which Romney 2012 has Bested Romney 2008: 10
Number of States in which Romney 2008 has Bested Romney 2012: 9

Romney vs. Romney (update, 04.04.12)

View more presentations from kkellyfv

Romney 2012 > Romney 2008 (10)

New Hampshire (+7.7%)
South Carolina (+12.6%)
Florida (+15.4%)
Michigan (+2.2%)
Arizona (+12.8%)
Massachusetts (+20.9%)
Oklahoma (+3.2%)
Tennessee (+4.4%)
Alabama (+11.2%)
Illinois (+18.1%)

Romney 2012 < Romney 2008 (9)

Iowa (-0.7%)
Nevada (-1.0%)
Missouri (-4.0%)
Minnesota (-24.5%)
Colorado (-25.2%)
Maine (-12.5%)
Alaska (-11.3%)
Georgia (-4.3%)
North Dakota (-12.1%)

Eliminated States (14)

Washington (+22.2%)
Idaho (+61.6%)
Ohio (+34.6%)
Vermont (+35.2%)
Virginia (+55.8%)
Kansas (+17.6%)
Mississippi (+28.8%)
Hawaii (+45.4%)
Wyoming (+44.0%)
Puerto Rico (+88.0%)
Louisiana (+20.4%)
Maryland (+42.1%)
Wisconsin (+42.1%)
District of Columbia (+63.8%)

GOP Nomination: Analysis and Reform

Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:37:43 -0700

With the presidential nomination season in full swing, FairVote has commentary and analysis that looks at the primary process through different lenses and proposes reforms to make them more representative, grounded in our belief that winner-take-all rules exclude voters.

2012 Presidential Primary Resources

FairVote: Media Gets it Wrong on Winner-Take-All

Seattle Times commentary based on Paul vs. Paul analysis

U.S. News: Rob Richie advocates for a national primary

Six Takes on the Republican Nomination Contest

Remember Young People in Maryland’s Primary

Voting Rights Lessons from Puerto Rico’s Primary

Survey of California Republicans Has Revealing Results

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 07:04:01 -0800

Read the full press release from Californians for Electoral Reform here.

Californians for Electoral Reform conducted a revealing survey of delegates to the California Republican Party state convention last weekend. Using a ranked choice voting ballot, they surveyed the delegates about their presidential picks. The results have Newt Gingrich winning in the fourth instant runoff round. More insights from the press release concerning the survey include:

“By enumerating their preferences, California Republican activists give insight into their voting patterns. Ron Paul’s support is deep but not as widespread as his campaign might wish. Only 16 of the 116 voters who did not support Ron Paul as a first choice subsequently chose him as a later preference.”

“The most significant news this poll offers is the strength exhibited by Newt Gingrich, especially as the second choice of the overwhelming majority of Rick Santorum supporters. Gingrich shows considerable resilience among activists in the California Republican Party.”

Results:

ROUND ONE
Ron Paul 60
Newt Gingrich 45
Rick Santorum 32
Mitt Romney 30
write-ins:
Herman Cain 2
Chris Christie 2
Michelle Bachmann 1
Rudy Giuliani 1
Jon Huntsman 1
Sarah Palin 1
Donald Trump 1
There were other write-ins, but not as first choices, so they didn't get any votes. They were: Mitch Daniels, Jim DeMint, Fred Karger, Bobby Jindal, Gary Johnson, M. Woodrow Johnston II, Sheriff Richard Mack, Chuck Norris, Rand Paul, Tim Pawlenty, General David Petraeus, Marco Rubio, Ralph Wiggum (Simpsons character), "Anybody but Obama", and "None of the rest".

ROUND TWO
All write-ins were eliminated simultaneously, and those ballots redistributed to each voter’s
respective second choices. Ballots that list no further preferences for active candidates are
placed in the Exhausted category.
Ron Paul (+3) 63
Newt Gingrich (+4) 49
Rick Santorum (+0) 32
Mitt Romney (+1) 31
Exhausted (+1) 1

ROUND THREE
Mitt Romney had the fewest votes in round two, so he was eliminated and those ballots
redistributed to each voter’s respective next choice. Note that Romney supporters divide fairly
evenly in their second choices.
Ron Paul (+7) 70
Newt Gingrich (+8) 57
Rick Santorum (+11) 43
Exhausted (+5) 6

ROUND FOUR
Since round three still produced no candidate exhibiting a majority of support, we now eliminate
Rick Santorum. Note that Santorum supporters overwhelmingly make Gingrich second choice.
Newt Gingrich (+35) 92
Ron Paul (+6) 76
Exhausted (+2) 8
So Newt Gingrich, with a clear majority of 92 votes, wins the ranked ballot survey.

Read the full press release.

Read more about instant runoff voting.

Blame Game: NJ Governor Chris Christie Wrong to Fault RNC’s Proportional Rules for Romney’s Nomination Travails

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:19:38 -0800

Image Design: Sheahan Virgin

Snapshot

Whether or not Mitt Romney wins Republican primaries in Michigan and Arizona tonight, there is no denying the fact that, since his January 31 victory in Florida and February 4 win in Nevada, the last few weeks have been surprisingly difficult for the former Massachusetts governor. According to Romney surrogate New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, the Republican National Committee’s new rules (which led to more states allocating delegates by proportional representation)—not Mitt Romney and his declining vote shares relative to 2008—are at fault for his candidate’s recent travails. Blaming the rules for one’s poor performance or failure to meet expectations is certainly not a novel political strategy, but Christie’s statement—as we will see—gets a lot wrong. Just ask his state’s voters, which now are far more likely to vote in a meaningful primary.

* * *

There was a time after the New Hampshire primary when it seemed as though Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney would roll to victory early in the battle for his party’s nomination. Certainly, the stage was favorably set, the former Massachusetts governor possessing an impressive financial advantage, a swath of endorsements, and poll numbers indicating him to be the most competitive Republican candidate in prospective general election matchups against President Barack Obama. Although Romney struggled to bring conservative voters into his fold, he seemed to benefit from that voting bloc’s division among rival candidates battling for the “anti-Romney” mantle. When a prominent, well-funded Super PAC began spending heavily on his behalf, all the piece seemed to be in place.

And at first, the results conformed to expectations: an apparent razor-thin victory in the Iowa caucuses followed by a win in the New Hampshire primary. Romney, it seemed, was on his way. Then, the storm came. Finalized vote totals out of Iowa showed rival Rick Santorum besting Romney. Shortly after, Romney stumbled in South Carolina, losing by a large margin to a resurgent, reinvigorated Newt Gingrich. After a come-from-behind, face-saving win in Florida at the end of January, Romney’s regained frontrunner status took yet another blow, this time from Santorum, who stunned Romney (not to mention the entire professional punditocracy) on February 7, winning in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri to surge ahead nationally.

With Romney’s position increasingly precarious, some supporters within the party establishment, as The New Yorker reported recently, are “expressing misgivings,” with POLITICO adding that a cohort of GOP powerbrokers—looking to a brokered convention—have begun searching privately for an undeclared candidate to play the role of “savior.” As the race winds its way into March, Romney and his team—given the swings in momentum over the course of the campaign and Santorum’s vow to fight until the end of the schedule—are in the process of reformulating their strategy, preparing for a nomination battle that lasts longer than they had anticipated.

* * *

The question everyone seems to be asking is why a man with Mitt Romney’s advantages has been unable to defeat his opponents and claim the nomination, a query ABC’s George Stephanopoulos recently put to Romney backer, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Governor Christie, subscribing to the school of thought that the best defense is the attack, blamed his candidate’s problems on the Republican National Committee’s new rules that led to more states using proportional representation for the allocation of delegates to the Republican National Convention. Calling the rule change “a mistake,” Christie continued:

It’s just going to string this thing out against an incumbent president. It just makes no sense for us as a party. That’s why I voted “no,” and I hope the people in the party who voted “yes” for that are now rethinking their position…as a party, we should never have changed the rules, because what we’re doing now is we’re creating ourselves problems we don’t need.

In his statement, Christie appears to make two arguments: first, that the present extended nomination battle is the fault of proportional rules, and second, that an extended nomination battle—whatever its cause—is undesirable for the party.

Regarding the first argument, Christie’s preemptive strike against the GOP’s proportional rules misses a key point. Although it is true that a candidate cannot win a nomination without collecting a majority of delegates and that proportional rules do affect delegate distribution, such rules cannot be blamed for Romney’s present struggles. This is because Mitt Romney does not have a delegate problem, he has a vote problem. And if a candidate cannot win the most votes in a given contest, he or she misses out on critical momentum—in the form of increased donations, media attention, and event attendance—the true life giving force of a campaign.

If anything, this year’s election cycle has demonstrated the difficulty Romney has faced in winning voters over to his side. Most glaringly, he has lost states to his opponents—and therefore lost out on momentum—not once, but five times. As further evidence of Romney’s electoral weakness, he has won smaller vote shares compared to his own candidacy in 2008 in six of the nine states that have voted so far (see our Romney vs. Romney feature). As Romney has struggled with voters, he has let his opponents back in the race.

Whether losing states to other candidates or failing to match himself circa 2008, Romney’s underwhelming 2012 performance, then, is not attributable to him shedding a few delegates to Santorum here and a few to Gingrich and Ron Paul there, as a result of proportionality. Importantly, proportional rules for delegate allocation only come into play after voters have cast their ballots. As The Washington Post put it, “The fact that a new [challenger] emerges each time [Romney] vanquishes another betrays the existence of a deeper discontent with Romney himself.” In other words, the GOP race is “historically volatile” in part because of Romney, not in spite of him.

Christie’s second argument—that a protracted nomination battle is a “problem” for the party—is certainly not new, and indeed many other Republican governors—including some who have not endorsed a candidate—have raised similar concerns. In 2008, as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were mired in a highly acrimonious and seemingly never-ending nomination battle, many Democrats initially expressed similar concerns. Protracted intra-party battles, the traditional (and tired) argument goes, prevent a party from focusing on and uniting against its general election adversary (in this case President Obama) and risk bloodying the party’s eventual nominee.

But as 2008 showed, this conventional wisdom does not always reflect reality. Although initially political analysts thought John McCain’s early nomination victory would benefit his candidacy by allowing an earlier pivot to the general election, it soon became clear that the Democrats were benefiting from their lengthier process. Not only did McCain and the GOP endure a virtual media blackout as journalists covered each new round of the Democratic contest and highlighted the party’s message, but it prevented McCain from building campaign operations in states that had not hosted early GOP contests.

Furthermore, a preference for a shorter nomination battle is highly troubling democratically. In 2012, a truncated race for the GOP nomination would mean many millions of Republican voters would have no say in selecting their party’s nominee, including those in the governor’s home state of New Jersey, not set to vote until June 5. We can assume that if the governor thought on February 22 that the GOP nomination battle—after just a handful of state contests—was a “problem” that made “no sense” for his party, he would look upon the possibility of a June campaign between Romney and his opponents with trepidation. But as FairVote has noted before, in a truly democratic system, all voters, not just those in a few privileged early states, should have the right to participate in a meaningful contest and a fair process.

Democratic rights aside, Christie—in arguing for an early knockout—seems to prioritize the interests of his candidate over those of his state. For instance, one could argue a competitive Republican race in June to be a good thing for the New Jersey GOP, invigorating and galvanizing a party in a Democratic-leaning state and prepping state Republican voters for the coming general election. A competitive Republican primary would also bring attention a state long accustomed to the neglect and indifference of major party candidates.

Indeed, this is the reason why the RNC—having seen the way in which Obama vs. Clinton energized Democrats and put many Republican-leaning states in play—changed its rules two years ago. Can forcing Romney to contest primaries and caucuses in traditionally “blue” states, such as California (where Republicans are enthusiastic about having a contest that matters), really be a bad thing if it lays the groundwork for a possible general election campaign that forces President Obama to defend his own backyard? After all, Obama’s surprise wins in Indiana and North Carolina in 2008 were boosted by the campaign operations he had built in those state’s during the hotly contested Democratic primary.

* * *

It is natural for Governor Christie to defend his candidate. Such is what adroit surrogates do. If the governor wants to debate the merits of proportional rules, then that is fine. But to blame such rules for the struggles of Mitt Romney is simply to play loose with the facts. Even worse, the governor’s desire to avoid a nomination process in which more Americans—rather than fewer—get to participate demonstrates a sobering disregard for the democratic principles upon which our nation was supposedly founded.

Rule Breaker: The Florida Republican Primary, Winner-Take-All Allocation, and the Undoing of American Democracy

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:36:52 -0800

Photo Credit: Joe Raedle, Getty

Alligators and orange juice, space ships and sunshine be damned, Florida’s greatest claim to fame over the last decade has been its penchant for political controversy. Having labored and lucked its way into the spotlight of successive election cycles, the Sunshine State is today an almost mythical place for presidential candidates, a land of both hope and hazard. And more than any other state over the last decade, Florida has demonstrated to Americans the perils of reflexive adherence to current voting procedures and the overwhelming need for election reform.

Two days ago, Florida once again found itself on the frontlines of a presidential election, as it played host to a Republican Party searching for clarity amid the disorienting fog of war. In the GOP’s 2012 nomination contest, three states had gone before Florida, each coronating a different would-be nominee—Iowa for Rick Santorum, New Hampshire for Mitt Romney, South Carolina for Newt Gingrich—a lack of concurrence that positioned Florida as an all-powerful tiebreaker with the schedule to itself.

After days of attention, a handful of nationally televised debates, and millions of dollars in advertisements, the candidates—having made their respective pitches—could only wait for Floridians to render a collective verdict. In the end, Romney overwhelmed Gingrich, winning with 46.4% of the vote—his largest plurality of the campaign thus far—to 31.9% for Gingrich, 13.4% for Santorum, and 7.0% for Ron Paul.

Not only did Romney right the proverbial ship after a sobering loss in South Carolina, but the former Massachusetts governor collected all 50 of Florida’s delegates to the Republican Convention, the Sunshine State’s winner-take-all rules inflating the strength of his non-majority victory (46.4% of the vote yielding 100% of delegates). Despite combining for a 52.3% majority of the vote, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul exited Florida empty handed, delegate-less.

* * *

Perhaps most disquieting for Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul is that, had the RNC enforced its own rules, Florida would not have been able to employ winner-take-all allocation. In a confrontation last year, the RNC stripped the Sunshine State of half its delegates for violating party scheduling rules proscribing a primary date that encroached upon the privileged status of Iowa and New Hampshire. With the RNC apparently unwilling to penalize the state by reducing its delegates twice, Floridian powerbrokers subsequently broke the RNC rule requiring all states holding pre-April contests to employ proportional methods of delegate allocation, opting instead for a winner-take-all primary. By breaking these two rules and holding an early winner-take-all contest, Florida, as The Washington Post notes, made itself “one of the most pivotal states in the presidential race.”

While the RNC should be commended for moving to proportional allocation* for convention delegates for the pre-April contests this election cycle, its inability† to force an insubordinate early state like Florida (soon to be followed Arizona, which also is breaking the rules with a winner-take-all primary) to obey party policy threatens to undermine the key changes—such as a longer nomination battle and its corresponding voter enthusiasm and media attention—the party hoped to effect with its rule modification. Forty-nine confiscated delegates to the Republican Convention in exchange for a much-hyped winner-take-all contest and two weeks of adoration from doting candidates might have been a good deal for Florida, but it was a sour deal for the American people.

Put simply, proportional allocation keeps a nomination battle going in that it enables more than one candidate to seize delegates—and therefore, influence within the party. Winner-take-all allocation—which many states prefer because it provides for larger swings in the delegate race and increases their importance—tends to abbreviate the process, as the candidate with the most votes in a state, no matter her share, lands all of its delegates. Such a result is undemocratic, as it not only leads to delegate counts unreflective of the vote, but also often drives the de facto nomination of a candidate before the majority of Americans have had an opportunity to vote.

For example, in the 2008 GOP nomination battle between John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Rudy Giuliani, Florida’s January 29 winner-take-all primary proved decisive. McCain, despite winning an unimpressive 36.0% of the vote to Romney’s 31.0% (a mere 5% margin), gathered all 57 of the state’s delegates, or 100%. Like Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee, despite 14.7% and 13.5% of the vote, respectively, received no delegates.

Although McCain’s margin was small and the race extremely competitive, Florida’s winner-take-all rules portrayed the Arizona senator’s victory as absolute—the latest step in his inexorable march to the nomination—and gave him enormous momentum heading into Super Tuesday on February 5. In other words, winner-take-all allocation made an admittedly vulnerable candidate look invincible, a storyline that subsequently shortchanged the process, as each of McCain’s challengers—having staked so much on one state, Florida—retreated into premature obscurity, the race essentially over before millions of voters and the majority of states had had a chance to weigh in. Trademark winner-take-all.

* * *

Never one for nuance, winner-take-all undermines American democracy, reducing million of voters to irrelevancy. The RNC was correct to move away from a winner-take-all system. Importantly, proportional allocation of delegates is more likely to lead to a prolonged nomination fight, which gives more voters an opportunity to evaluate formally the candidates. Proportionality, additionally, is more reflective of the popular vote, including—rather than excluding—candidates, rewarding them for their effort, spreading—rather than concentrating—influence, and granting voters of all stripes a voice at the party convention. The GOP must make an example of Florida in order to deter similar rule infractions in 2016, by Florida or any other state. If it fails to do so, then winner-take-all will continue to slither its way back into American primary politics.

_________

* In 2010, the RNC—recognizing that states prefer holding early, winner-take-all contests—changed party rules to prohibit winner-take-all allocation of delegates to the Republican Convention for any primary or caucus occurring before April 1, 2012, with the exception of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada (see Rule 15(b)(1) and 15(b)(2)). In other words, states were presented the choice between an early primary employing proportionality and a winner-take-all primary occurring later on the schedule. By doing so, the RNC hoped to accomplish the twin goals of prolonging the nomination battle and deterring front-loading of the schedule.

† Florida could be compelled to allocate its delegates to the Republican Convention proportionally, although for now, the winner-take-all method stands. A provision in the RNC’s rules allows a registered Florida Republican to file a challenge with the RNC Committee on Contests, asking the committee to force Florida to allot its delegates proportionally. If such a complaint is approved by the Committee on Contests, the RNC could force the Sunshine State to retroactively give delegates to Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul. If the race between Romney and his competitors evolves into a delegate-driven war of attrition, debate over Florida’s delegates could take center stage once more.

South Carolina voters better enjoy it while it lasts

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:13:52 -0800

With the South Carolina primary just around the corner on Saturday, the preferences of South Carolina voters are of intense interest to the nation -and of course to the candidates swarming the states. Events, polls, debates and the media are all focused on South Carolina voters.

Today alone, GOP candidates are holding a combined 16 events throughout the state . Even comedian Stephen Colbert is holding a rally with Herman Cain, and the online world is full of chatter about Newt Gingrich's showdown with the media in last night's debate and who took home the prize for best debater of the night. There have been five total debates in South Carolina since politicians first started announcing their candidacy - three in the past week alone.

But after Saturday? Forget it. South Carolina will be lucky to see a presidential candidate in the next four years - -indeed, they may hardly see whoever is elected president until 2016. The state and its voters effectively won't matter once they cast their vote on Saturday.

It's all a product of our November election rules. Because South Carolina has a law to allocate all its electoral votes to the winner of the state, and since the outcome in November is not in question (a Republican is sure to carry the state in a nationally competitive year), there will be no incentive for the Republican nominee to return once the primary is over.

President Barack Obama will almost certainly skip the state as well. In fact, according to our Presidential Tracker, the president has visited South Carolina zero times since taking office in January of 2009. That's right. Zero. In contrast, he has held 14 separate events in neighboring North Carolina, which is also more likely to be a November battleground.

Just take a look at the two charts below that show a general news trend of interest in South Carolina voters and politics. The 2008 spike in interest in South Carolina and its voters is quite noticeable, but so too is the four-year drought in between presidential elections. Now, the cycle is just repeating itself again this month as interest in South Carolina climbs back up during this year's primary season -- its inevitable decline on the horizon.

So South Carolina soon will find themselves back in the undesirable position of "safe state" and be excluded from the national conversation come November. It's one alone. Truly, most states don't matter in presidential elections in November. Thanks to current state rules governing the Electoral College-- specifically, the winner-take-all system that 48 of our 50 states use -- about 40 states will be effective spectators in the general elections. All the hail storm of promotional ads, fancy suits, political rhetoric, and rallying cries will be in the familiar states of Ohio, Florida and the like. For South Carolina? Just a memory.

The best way to make every voter matter in every election is the National Popular Vote plan. South Carolina in fact had a debate about the idea, with CSPAN coverage . Former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson, a 2008 Republican presidential candidate, was among those championing the NPV proposal. The proposal keeps making steady progress and has a real chance to be in place in 2016.

There are less than 48 hours of relevancy left for South Carolina voters. We hope they enjoy it while it lasts. Presidential candidates probably won't be back for another four years.

Learn more about the national popular vote plan for electing the president

RCV for the GOP: Mitt Romney, Fractured Conservatives, and the Importance of Rules in Determining Election Outcomes

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:09:32 -0800

Photo Credit: Justin Sullivan, Getty

After low-plurality “wins” in the Iowa caucuses* and the New Hampshire primary, Mitt Romney became the clear frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination. Viewed in historical context, Romney’s impending nomination appears rather unremarkable; the GOP has long had a reputation for hierarchy, regularly opting for the “heir apparent” over a challenger, and 2012 was Romney’s turn after having waited patiently in line for four years. Yet when viewed through the prism of current events—with the recent ascent of energized conservatives† in the Republican coalition—the GOP’s nomination of a man widely considered the least conservative remaining candidate in the 2012 Republican presidential field is remarkable.

As disillusioned conservatives wonder how a “Massachusetts moderate”—as Romney’s opponents call him derisively—found a path to the nomination in a party moving rightward, they would do well to remember that, as always, the devil is in the details. Romney’s steady march to the nomination is very much a product of the current election framework in place, which allows a candidate to win a state with a plurality, rather than a majority, of the vote. True, in this election cycle, more GOP contests will allocate delegates proportionally than ever before, but in actuality, the media, commentators, and voters still treat each state contest as “winner-take-all.” In Iowa and New Hampshire, for instance, a plurality of the vote no longer earns a candidate 100% of delegates, but it still gives her a surge of momentum, the true life-giving force in a presidential campaign.

Majorities, though technically unnecessary, are desirable in that they “legitimatize” candidates and give the appearance of widespread consensus. But plurality election rules only guarantee majorities in races featuring two candidates. In a multi-candidate contest sporting three or more viable candidates, plurality voting does a woeful job—the larger the field, the more difficult it becomes to win a majority, the “triumphant” candidate often denied the legitimatizing effects of a convincing victory. Plurality elections are also susceptible to “spoiler effects,” which occur when a voting bloc fractures between two (or more) like-minded candidates, a schism that allows a third, least-preferred candidate to win. Spoiler effects, as the inherent bitterness of the term implies, can lead to animosity between campaigns and disillusionment among voters, lingering negativity that could prove detrimental to a party in subsequent elections.

Romney's 2012 Opponents: Gingrich and Paul

Although too late for the 2012 Republican nomination battle, there are alternatives to plurality elections, voting systems designed to respect the nuances of opinion in a multi-candidate field, while at the same time guaranteeing a majority of voters support the winning candidate. Ranked choice voting (RCV, also called instant runoff voting) —recently used for local elections in Democratic-leaning Portland, Maine, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and San Francisco, California, but also for key party contests held by Republicans in Utah—allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference: one, two, three, four, etc. If no candidate receives a majority of the initial vote, the last place finisher is eliminated, his votes redistributed to surviving candidates based on expressed second choices; this process of elimination/redistribution continues, round by round, until a candidate has received a majority of the vote.

Whereas plurality elections highlight the division within a party and often weaken candidates, RCV seeks consensus and concurrence, strengthening the position of the party and its nominee as it pivots to the general election. In ensuring winners can earn a majority when matched against their toughest opponents, RCV not only precludes plurality winners, but forces a candidate to build carefully a diverse, layered coalition, combining her own first choices with voters of subsequently eliminated opponents (unless, of course she commands a majority in the first round).

As a result, RCV usually sees a decline in negative campaigning and attack advertisements, the rules encouraging candidates not to slander an adversary—and risk the ire of his voters—but to build bridges and form partnerships. RCV also removes the spoiler effect from the electoral equation: like-minded candidates who divide a voting bloc in the first round are pared eventually down to one representative, voters liberated to cast expressive rather than strategic ballots.

________

Plurality rules have affected greatly the 2012 battle for the GOP nomination, and although RCV might achieve the same ends, plurality’s means of selecting a nominee arguably have been negative for all parties involved—whether Romney or his conservative challengers. Whom RCV would have benefited in 2012, had it been implemented, depends on the narrative to which one subscribes—does a latent majority reside in the possession of a unified conservative bloc or that of a diligent Romney campaign that has successfully courted select conservatives? Polls have contradicted each other on this point—some showing a latent majority for conservatives, others for Romney—and, as such, both should be treated as equally plausible.

Scenario 1: Assuming an Anti-Romney Conservative Majority

According to this narrative, plurality rules have penalized conservative voters for failing to coalesce around a single ideological standard-bearer, dividing their majority within the party between a multitude of candidates—each garnering enough support to survive, but never enough to flourish—and allowing Romney to take advantage of the disarray and lack of coordination. Despite Newt Gingrich’s declaration that Romney must “get a majority somewhere,” in fact under plurality rules, he need not get a majority anywhere, steamrolling to the nomination like McCain four years ago without ever having had to prove his standing among conservative voters.

Romney's 2012 Opponents: Santorum and Perry

This version of events portrays Romney as usurper, an opportunistic “conservative of convenience” rather than an authentic ideological warrior of the Right, in the process of snatching the GOP nomination away from the party’s fractured conservative majority, the beneficiary of a “spoiler effect.” If true, such an occurrence is deeply troubling for the Republican Party, as it would contribute to the perception that, yet again, the voice of conservatives has been muffled and its wishes disregarded. The Weekly Standard recently gave voice to such resentment, questioning why “the party of Ronald Reagan” repeatedly nominates individuals who “opposed Reagan” in the 1980s.

In order to unite a divided movement under plurality voting rules, one or more conservative contenders would need to withdraw from the race—thereby denying voters in other states the right to evaluate all candidates; already, such considerations have forced Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann out of the field. Such was the reasoning behind Gingrich’s recent statement that “any vote for Santorum or Perry is in effect a vote to allow Romney to become the nominee,” the former House speaker imploring the South Carolinian, anti-Romney vote to solidify around him, as well as a recent Texas meeting among influential evangelical Christian and conservative leaders seeking to encourage a united front for Santorum.

RCV, by contrast, would eliminate such concerns, allowing conservative voters to rank Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, and Perry (that is, before he dropped out) on a ballot—permitting, rather than penalizing, nuance—and to unite behind one anti-Romney in subsequent rounds. At the very least, RCV would have forced Romney to reach out to conservatives, moving rightward to repair a strained relationship. Regardless, the spoiler effect would be eliminated and the voice of conservatives heeded.

Scenario 2: Assuming a Pro-Romney Majority

According to this narrative, while many conservative voters might prefer other candidates first, Mitt Romney has made significant and numerous rightward strides this election cycle in an attempt to pursue Tea Party supporters and evangelical Christians. The quarrels over ideological purity and questions over Romney’s standing among conservatives, which have dominated the media’s coverage of the race, have merely obscured the existence of an increasingly strong Romney majority, concerned most with defeating President Obama in November and which views Romney as the most “electable” of the Republican crop. Plurality voting then, has allowed Romney to win by clearing the lowest necessary bar, but has prevented him from displaying his wider appeal as the second choice of many voters.

This version of events portrays Romney as consensus candidate, the one man capable of uniting the GOP’s diverse coalition of voting blocs and preventing a second Obama term. Romney’s pluralities have failed to convince, the rules masking his majority, portraying him as vulnerable, and denying him the legitimacy that only a majority can confer. Sensing weakness, Romney’s conservative opponents have continued to believe in the existence of a “stop-Romney” majority, which—if this narrative is true—simply does not exist.

Under RCV, however, Romney, buoyed by an electoral framework that respects nuanced, multilayered opinion, would have the opportunity to demonstrate his appeal, a “consensus candidate” preferred most by all elements of the party and in command of a majority. The damaging and unflattering story that he cannot win among conservatives would be rendered untenable, and Romney’s efforts to attract conservatives would finally pay electoral dividends. And if, in actuality, a majority proved outside Romney’s grasp after the reallocation of second/third/fourth choices, then RCV would at least legitimatize another candidate.

________

The rules matter, discussion over electoral law being more than an esoteric, philosophical abstraction best left to academics teaching Political Science on a college campus. Rather, it affects citizens and political actors in very real, personal ways. Too often wrongly dismissed as a ploy by progressives, RCV and other reforms transcend the traditional divide between conservatives at one end of the ideological spectrum, progressives at the other, and centrists in between, and could have very real benefits for a divided Republican Party craving consensus and searching for unity in the age of Obama.

________

* Although finalized vote totals show Rick Santorum winning the Iowa caucuses by 34 votes over Mitt Romney, we purposefully refer to the contest as a win for Romney, who—since the media jumped the gun on election night and declared Romney the victorious candidate—received the lion's share of post-Iowa momentum.

† As a term, "conservative"—like most labels—is nebulous and difficult to define. In this article, we have used conservative as an umbrella term for a heterogeneous coalition of evangelical Christians and Tea Party supporters, which is consistent with journalistic opinion.

South Carolina Primary: One Candidate May Easily Win All Delegates

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:28:37 -0800

The political world is focused on South Carolina’s primary tomorrow, which has been a volatile race that seems to be coming down to Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. Polls this week show both men hovering around a third of the vote.

But the statewide outcome is not the only story tomorrow. At this point, more attention should be paid to what nomination contests mean for allocation of delegates to the Republican National Convention this August in Florida. The bottom line is that whoever wins South Carolina will not only gain momentum, but also will likely take the lead in delegates earned from nomination contests.

The Iowa caucuses triggered great media hype over the Iowa caucuses and attention to whether Romney or Rick Santorum “won” them with a quarter of the vote, but in fact no delegates were bound by what amounted to a straw poll. The New Hampshire primary allocated only 12 delegates, with the top three vote-getters dividing them on a roughly proportional basis. With the nomination winner ultimately needing 1,144 delegates, we obviously should have a long way to go – that is, if the media will let the contest keep unfolding without prematurely crowning the current leader as the sure winner.

Delegate allocation isn’t nearly as straightforward as it might seem. FairVote has posted an updated review of delegate allocation rules in the 50 states, the District of Columbia and five territories. In 2010, the Republican National Committee, to much fanfare, established a new rule (Republican Party’s Rule 15(b)(2)) requiring any state or territory holding a contest before April 1 must allocate delegates by proportional representation. But that’s not quite how it worked out.

First, South Carolina was one of four states exempted from the requirement to use proportional representation, but it’s the only one taking advantage of that exemption. It has established a rule that may well lead to one candidate winning all of the state’s delegates with less than 40% of the state’s popular vote.

Second, two additional states, Florida and Arizona, are allocating all delegates to the statewide winner in upcoming contests held before April 1st. They’ve lost half of their delegates already due to breaking RNC rules on when to hold the contest (as have South Carolina and New Hampshire), but are not being sanctioned for using the winner-take-all rule instead of proportional representation.

Finally, Puerto Rico is breaking the rule as well, holding a winner-take-all contest in March without any apparent penalty whatsoever.

South Carolina’s delegates may end up being allocated to more than one candidate, but it won’t be according to proportional representation. According to South Carolina’s Republican Party rules, the state party will award its 11 at-large delegates to the winner of the statewide primary vote and will award two delegates on a winner-take-all basis to the winner of each of the seven congressional districts.

In winning statewide, a candidate likely will, although not necessarily, carry most of the state’s congressional districts. That means that the winner will likely earn at least 19 of the state’s 25 delegates (11 state-wide, plus eight for carrying four districts). The winning candidate could end up with a plurality of the vote in each congressional district and earn all 25 delegates, even with far less than 50% of the vote.

South Carolina effectively would become a winner-take-all state if one candidate were to sweep the statewide primary and the congressional districts, as well. Romney still has a real chance to win the state, which would strengthen his frontrunner status, but most polls show Gingrich with a growing lead. He has the best changes to secure all of South Carolina’s 25 delegates, which would put him into the national lead.

A Gingrich win also could propel him toward a win in Florida, where his large December lead had recently evaporated as Romney surged ahead. With Florida using winner-take-all as well, whoever wins the state may well keep the lead in delegates no matter what happens in all the February contests, as those contests will be allocated largely by proportional representation.

This raises questions about why the Republican National Committee seems more concerned about trying to enforce the scheduling of primaries than its 2010 requirement of proportional representation in early contests. The party adopted strict limits on use of winner-take-all rules to ensure more states had a chance to hold meaningful contests and to force their eventual nominee to demonstrate strength in more parts of the country. With uneven enforcement of its rule, that goal is less likely to be met – and outcomes more likely to be distorted.

FairVote Feed: Presidential Nominations Reform

The 2012 GOP Nomination Contest Affirms Value of New Rules

Paul vs. Paul

Number of States in which Paul 2012 has Bested Paul 2008: 29Number of States in which Paul 2008 has Bested Paul 2012: 2

Romney vs. Romney

Number of States in which Romney 2012 has Bested Romney 2008: 10Number of States in which Romney 2008 has Bested Romney 2012: 9

GOP Nomination: Analysis and Reform

Survey of California Republicans Has Revealing Results

Blame Game: NJ Governor Chris Christie Wrong to Fault RNC’s Proportional Rules for Romney’s Nomination Travails

Rule Breaker: The Florida Republican Primary, Winner-Take-All Allocation, and the Undoing of American Democracy

South Carolina voters better enjoy it while it lasts

RCV for the GOP: Mitt Romney, Fractured Conservatives, and the Importance of Rules in Determining Election Outcomes

South Carolina Primary: One Candidate May Easily Win All Delegates

Number of States in which Paul 2012 has Bested Paul 2008: 29
Number of States in which Paul 2008 has Bested Paul 2012: 2

Number of States in which Romney 2012 has Bested Romney 2008: 10
Number of States in which Romney 2008 has Bested Romney 2012: 9