FairVote Feed: Presidential Nominations Reform

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

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

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.

Democracy Lost: the Iowa Caucus, the New Hampshire Primary, and the Shortchanging of American Presidential Politics

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:45:38 -0800

Photo Credit: lividity101

Though the process by which the major parties select their nominees for president has democratized considerably since the bygone days of the ignominious “smoke-filled room”—within which powerful, deal-cutting party barons, rather than voters, determined the national ticket—it remains a system that inequitably prioritizes certain citizens over others.

Today’s barons in the primaries are not party elites puffing on cigars, but everyday voters in Iowa and New Hampshire—farmers, schoolteachers, laborers, and small business owners transformed into political kingpins—who have the good fortune to live in states that host the first two electoral contests in the nomination battles of both major political parties.

Alarmingly, Iowa and New Hampshire comprise just 1.4% of the national population, and neither is demographically representative of the nation, being 91.3% and 93.9% white, respectively. Yet despite being neither populous nor diverse, every four years Iowans and New Hampshirites wield tremendous power, determining for the nation which presidential candidates are allowed to continue on and which are instructed to close shop and go home.

The reason is obvious: the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary confer enormous benefits on candidates who either meet or exceed expectations, giving them forward momentum while the remaining candidates see the money dry up, the television cameras disappear, and the crowds thin as the media instructs voters to look elsewhere. While Iowa and New Hampshire may not necessarily pick a party’s eventual nominee (or agree with each other, for that matter), they always shrink the field.

Another consequence of Iowa/New Hampshire momentum is that it often gives a candidate the ability to steamroll to the nomination. Indeed, in the majority of nomination contests over the past half century, a party’s eventual nominee has often gotten a firm grip on the nomination early in the process, leaving voters in the remaining states the primarily ceremonial task of ratifying the decision the early states already have taken.

The ability of Iowa and New Hampshire to winnow presidential fields and coronate frontrunners is often thought to be desirable, both allowing surviving candidates more oxygen and eliminating allegedly nonviable candidates who heretofore have cluttered the stage. Party establishments, moreover, find such winnowing/coronating power beneficial, as a swift nomination battle between prospective candidates allows for an earlier pivot to the general election campaign.

An alternative perspective, however, is that investment of such power in two states is not only inequitable, but highly undemocratic. Why should a handful of Iowans and New Hampshirites have the right to speak on behalf of an entire nation? Can we be certain they have eliminated candidates who would not have performed better in states with different demographic compositions or political traditions? And why, just because Iowa and New Hampshire find a particular candidate a compelling nominee, should the rest of America simply trust their judgment—especially when eliminated candidates express dissenting viewpoints that would not otherwise have been aired within a constrained two-party system.

Democrats in 2004: Dean, Clark, and Gephardt

To get proverbial for a moment, if one person’s trash could be another’s treasure, could not one state’s also-ran be another state’s breakout star, and vice versa? When a lackluster performance in Iowa or New Hampshire forces a candidate out of a nomination battle prematurely, voters in other states never have the opportunity to evaluate formally this individual—which under a truly democratic system, they should possess. Similarly, when a candidate leaves Iowa and New Hampshire as the prohibitive nominee—the media already salivating over a projected general election matchup—other states are denied any ability to influence the race.

Looking at primary campaigns from the preceding decade, we see races characterized not by protraction, but by brevity—in which Iowa and New Hampshire have played decisive rolls.

In 2004, Howard Dean’s bid for the Democratic nomination fell victim to the one-two Iowa/New Hampshire punch of a resurgent John Kerry—though Dean lingered on for another couple contests. Richard Gephardt ended his campaign following a fourth place finish in Iowa, while Joseph Lieberman exited the race just a week after New Hampshire. Though both John Edwards and Wesley Clark continued deeper into the schedule, neither had a realistic chance of catching Kerry, the post Iowa/New Hampshire momentum of whom was too great to overcome.

Republicans in 2008: Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani

In 2008, losses in Iowa and New Hampshire irreparably wounded Mitt Romney’s campaign, the latter of which returned John McCain to the top of the proverbial pack and gave him the momentum to earn low-plurality wins subsequently in South Carolina and Florida. A lackluster result in Iowa sent Fred Thompson’s campaign reeling, while Rudy Giuliani, abandoning his initial New Hampshire-centric strategy in the face of mediocre polling, retreated to Florida, where he was later defeated. In many respects, Giuliani was 2008’s poster child for how the lack of Iowa/New Hampshire momentum can sink a once promising national candidacy.

True, the 2008 Democratic primary between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama evolved into a frenetic delegate-driven battle of attrition that went down to the final states on the schedule, but this was a deviation from the norm; and even so, Iowa and New Hampshire maintained their winnowing power, with Joseph Biden and Christopher Dodd withdrawing following poor Iowa showings and Bill Richardson pulling out after New Hampshire. John Edwards, meanwhile, was unable to attract much attention as a result of Obama’s post-Iowa hype and Clinton’s post-New Hampshire publicity; they had momentum, and he didn’t.

Democrats in 2008: Biden , Dodd, and Richardson

The 2012 battle for the Republican nomination appears to be following the same trend: Iowa and New Hampshire tell the nation who’s hot and who’s not, leading to an abbreviated primary schedule in which the majority of states are irrelevant. With Mitt Romney having bested Rick Santorum and Ron Paul in Iowa and leading in New Hampshire, many observers believe Romney—despite tepid support nationally among Republican voters—could be the de facto nominee by February.

NBC news analysts after their Sunday debate argued that wins for Romney in New Hampshire and South Carolina would end the contest, despite a dissatisfied Republican electorate as reflected in the remarkable swings we have seen in polls and illustrated by the seemingly endless parade of anti-Romneys over the last few months. “So it has come to this,” POLITICO’s Roger Simon opined in an article titled Hello, Goodbye, “Seven days since [voting for the GOP nomination] began, [and] it is essentially over.”

Republicans in 2012: Bachmann, Huntsman, and Pawlenty

Already, Michele Bachmann has dropped out after her poor finish in the January 3 caucus, while Rick Perry’s campaign—though it marches on, for now—is apparently on life support. Meanwhile, Jon Huntsman, who has staked everything on New Hampshire, will likely withdraw absent a top two result. Tim Pawlenty, once considered a leading alternative to Romney, exited the stage in August after a third-place result in the Iowa straw poll.

Whatever one may think of these aforementioned candidacies, in a democratic system, so few individuals should not have the authority to foreclose choices before an entire nation. After all, candidates handed a certificate of defeat by the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire were not running for each state’s respective governorship; they were striving to become president of the United States. When dealing with national offices, should not all Americans have the right to weigh in?

A far better way to structure nominations would be the American Plan, a significant reform to our nation’s primary process that preserves the tradition of having a staggered primary calendar—thereby maintaining the benefits of not having every state contest on a super “primary day,” which unfairly advantages candidates with money and name recognition—but employs a graduated system, with clear breaks that increase the likelihood that other voters will cast meaningful votes. Iowa and New Hampshire have had decades in the spotlight; it is time for other states to have their moment too.

The Role of Proportional Representation in the New Hampshire Primary

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:51:00 -0800

In the wake of the nonbinding Iowa caucuses, the first primary of the 2012 presidential election is being held today in New Hampshire. Those eagerly anticipating the results of this Republican primary will note that the delegates elected will be allocated according to proportional representation, and not by a winner-take-all allocation.

New Hampshire’s primaries are conducted according to state national party rules, although within rules established by the state relating to who can vote. The Democratic Party requires the allocation of delegates according to proportional representation based on a 15% threshold. Without a major challenger, Barack Obama is expected to earn all of the state’s delegates,

Meanwhile, Republican parties are holding a hotly contested primary with six major candidates. As in the past, the New Hampshire Republican Party allocates delegates on the basis of proportional representation. To earn a share of the state’s 12 delegates up for grabs today, a candidate must earn at least 10% of the vote, which as many as five candidates (Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich) may surpass. Thus, even if Mitt Romney wins, as expected, it’s quite possible that nearly two-thirds of delegates will be awarded to other candidates.

State rules vary widely. After March 31st, a number of states will award all their delegates on a “winner-take-all” basis to the winner of the statewide vote. Some states have a mix of delegates being allocated based on the statewide vote (using either winner-take-all or proportional representation) and based on results in districts. South Carolina, for example, allocates 11 delegates based on the statewide vote and 2 each according to who carries each congressional district. That’s not “proportional representation,” although it may lead to more than one candidate earning at least some delegates.

Although the New Hampshire delegation has been penalized half of its original 24 delegates under Republican Party Rules 15(b)(1) and 16(a) for moving its primary date before February 1, the state has fully complied with Rule 15(b)(2), which states that all primaries held before April 1 shall be conducted using proportional representation. Thus, New Hampshire may have lost half of its delegates, but its delegates will represent the voters of New Hampshire more fully than states that use a winner-take-all system.

As FairVote’s Rob Richie has written, the Republican Party in 2008 was not helped by so many winner-take-all contests, which effectively ended the nomination battle before many states had voted. This allowed Democrats more chance to dominate the media and develop get-out-the-vote operations in more states ultimately carried by Barack Obama, such as late-voting states like Indiana and North Carolina. As a result, Republicans in 2010 modified their rules to require great use of proportional representation. States like Florida have flaunted that rule, as they will award all their delegates based on the statewide vote.

Understanding how the Iowa caucuses work – and don’t work

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 11:49:55 -0800

The national media is in a frenzy about the Republican contest in tonight’s Iowa caucuses. Unfortunately, most journalists seem to be getting the story wrong – and a key reason is not understanding or even thinking about the rules and their implications.

First, we shouldn’t obsess over who gets the most votes in the caucuses -- seriously. Several candidates are polling in double digits, but none are getting more than 25%. If that holds up, then the “winner” will have been rejected as a first choice by as many as four out of every five caucus participants.

Depending on the candidate finishing at the top of the heap, that winning total in fact might be closer to a ceiling of support rather than a floor. In other words, that winner might have been landslide loser if facing off against just his or her strongest opponent in a runoff.

Furthermore, Republicans aren’t allocating delegates on a winner-take-all basis. Indeed, they aren’t awarding national convention delegates at all tonight – the final Iowa delegates won’t be chosen for months at the state convention. Tonight is really more of a straw poll.

Given that it’s a straw poll and the media obsession with “winning,” it’s a shame that Iowa isn’t using instant runoff voting rather than plurality voting. Plurality voting simply isn’t designed for elections with more than two choices. In 2008, for example, John McCain’s nomination became inevitable due to low-plurality wins like his 37% in New Hampshire, 33% in South Carolina and 36% in Florida.

Ironically, the GOP field has several candidates who may have benefited from plurality rules. In 2006, for example, Rick Perry’s re-election bid in Texas drew just 39% when opposed by a Democrat and two strong independent candidates. In 2008, Michele Bachmann earned only 46% in her re-election to the U.S. House.

Given that Iowa Republicans are stuck with plurality voting, though, journalists should calm down about “winning.” It’s the same with most other primaries and caucuses before April 1st due to the fact that most states use variations of proportional representation for allocating delegates Proportional voting means that the statewide winner is only likely to earn more delegates, not all delegates. With only South Carolina and Florida using a statewide winner-take-all rule that shuts out opponents, candidates can come back from defeats.

Just like Tim Pawlenty must be regretting his decision to drop out after finishing “only” third in the August straw poll in Iowa, candidates should consider staying in the race, making their point and giving more of the nation’s Republicans a chance to weigh on in on their nominee.

So, political junkies, sit back, and eat your popcorn as you watch the pundits go crazy tonight. But let’s keep things in perspective –and be open to sensible changes to improve the process.

Debate Exclusion Harms Voters

Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:58:03 -0700

Since the 1948 radio debate between Thomas E. Dewey and Harold Stassen, Republican primary voters have been able to evaluate the merits of their party's presidential candidates by hearing them discuss the issues face to face. However, former two-term New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson was denied that opportunity last week when CNN barred him from participating in a debate at St. Anselm College in Goffstown, New Hampshire, the state where the first 2012 Republican presidential primary election will be held. CNN did not provide him a podium at the debate despite his 1994 and 1998 gubernatorial victories in a Democratic-leaning state, third-place finish in the Conservative Political Action Conference's 2011 straw poll and strong libertarian credentials, which include having a $1.4 billion budget surplus when finishing his second term. A politician scorned, Johnson criticized the decision and insisted he will continue his campaign despite the snubbing - he even posted a YouTube video that includes his responses to each question asked at the debate.

Governor Johnson's exclusion comes at a crucial time in the primary season when many Republican candidates are being evaluated for the first time on a national scale as they debate important issues including health care, the economy, and foreign policy. As the first debate that included frontrunner Mitt Romney, the New Hampshire debate provided a prime opportunity for lesser-known candidates to differentiate themselves, just as Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann did by surprising pundits and the media with her strong performance at the debate. Primary campaigns usually begin with a wide field of candidates who span the ideological spectrum that is slowly whittled down as successful candidates draw more support and less popular contenders withdraw. In contrast with general elections, which usually feature two strong, party-backed candidates, the primary season provides a unique opportunity for multifarious voices to be heard by a wider audience - indeed perhaps the most adventurous time in our politics for hearing dissenting voices like Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and Al Sharpton on the Democratic side and Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer and Ron Paul on the Republican side. Johnson's credibility is not in doubt, but his libertarian views have aroused doubt regarding his ability to energize the party base.

One of the most puzzling aspects of the situation is the ground on which CNN stood to exclude Johnson. The network justified its decision by imposing an objective criterion: participants must have garnered an average of 2% support in three nationwide surveys conducted by accredited polling organization. However, according the to Johnson campaign, the governor met the polling requirement. As Conor Friedersdorf from The Atlantic observed, "in most polls, the margin of error is such that everyone who actually understands statistics knows folks polling at 1 percent and 3 percent are tied." Moreover, in a video response to the ruling, Johnson's campaign claimed that several successful primary candidates also polled at 1% at this point in their candidacy, including one candidate, Michael Dukakis, and two presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

At the core of every modern, free democracy rests the idea that important policy matters should be made after careful deliberation and consideration of the facts. This principle is grounded in the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and of the press. Whether in Congress or the courtroom, our decision-makers rely upon exhaustive debate to determine which resolution best serves the needs of citizens and upholds the integrity of government. The election of capable candidates is arguably the most direct impact that the citizenry can have in this process. Voters rely on the media to create accurate portrayals of each candidate and present a fair opportunity for credible candidates to make their case to their constituents. CNN failed to provide voters the opportunity to evaluate Governor Johnson, instead relying on opinion polls of dubious importance.

More broadly, we need to challenge conventional approaches to general election debates, which regularly exclude candidates who are not from the major parties. For example, in 2008, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain held a debate immediately after revelations of the crisis on Wall Street that led to commitments of more than half a billion dollars for a temporary bailout. Many Americans were confused by the bailout, but Obama and McCain agreed on the issue and barely discussed it - and so we missed a great opportunity for a national conversation about its merits from a knowledgeable, diverse field of candidates. Multi-candidate debates in presidential primaries and many state races show that we can have meaningful debates with more than two candidates. Before making exclusionary decisions like CNN did, general election debate sponsors should establish sensible standards that lean toward inclusion, like those recommendations made by the Appleseed Citizens' Task Force. More information on this topic has been made available from Open Debates and Free & Equal. Additionally, Ballot Access News provides regular updates on issues related to democratic inclusivity, lest America drift toward the sort of "democracy" found today in countries like Russia. Then again, accommodating voter choice may not be so much of a chore if we implemented an electoral system like instant runoff voting.

Democrats to Shepherd States in Primaries?

Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:45:26 -0800

Tom Schaller at FiveThirtyEight has a must-read interview with a member of the Democratic National Committee's Change Commission, charged with offering solutions for reforming the presidential nomination process. I posted last week on some of the proposals that we knew of at the time, most importantly having to do with the removal of free will from superdelegates, but Schaller makes some more news with his discussion with DNCer Jeff Berman--and it's news that sounds pretty encouraging to FairVote.

Berman tells 538:

[A] major timing recommendation of the Commission is for the states to organize their dates around regional or sub-regional groupings, to address frontloading that occurs within the window. This would include the DNC Rules Committee looking at offering “bonus delegate allocations” for states that schedule their contest in these groupings. The idea here is to try to make the calendar more rational by having states cluster together on a voting day so that the candidates can campaign efficiently in contiguous states, as opposed to situations which we’ve seen in prior cycles where candidates had to campaign for contests held on the same day on both the East Coast and the West Coast. It’s just more efficient for candidates to conduct bus tours and other retail campaigning and to purchase advertising in overlapping media markets when multiple contests are held in contiguous states.

I like the sound of this, because not only does it tell us that the party is interested in doing away with the madness that is the rush to be on Super-Duper Tuesday, but because it offers incentives to states who comply, rather than relying on the usually-ineffective slaps on the wrist for wayward states.

Even better, of course, would be a system that rotates these regional contests (preferably in increasing size, as in the American Plan) so no particular group of states has a monopoly on any part of the calendar. But alas. Even with this new revelation, the same states are still being given unjustified special status, always holding their contests before everyone else. No change has been made along these lines, and indeed, New Hampshire has made it very clear of late that they have no intention of letting anyone (other than Iowa) get in front of them in line.

Still, this news from Berman makes these baby steps toward reform a little closer to toddler steps.

Super No More

Thu, 07 Jan 2010 08:09:58 -0800

The Democratic National Committee's Change Commission, charged with finding ways to improve and reform the party's presidential nomination process, has released its recommendations, and while they are not nearly as sweeping as we would prefer, there is one particular change that will further democratize the process--should the party adopt the recommendations.

First, the good news: Superdelegates would be far less super, in the sense that they would no longer be able to sway the nomination on their own. The commission recommended that party leaders and elected officials who as of now serve as unpledged delegates lose the "un-" prefix. Instead, these folks' votes would be allocated to candidates proportionally based on results in their respective states (not winner-take-all as some have reported). Yes, you're correct, this would make them just like regular delegates, except that by virtue of their station they get a guaranteed vote. A vote they can't make an independent decision on, and therefore cannot thwart the will of the Democratic electorate, but a vote nonetheless. It's a genuine improvement, and I presume keeps some party big cheeses appeased.

Then there's the this-might-be-big news: Delegates formerly known as super will not be distributed artificially among the states, so if your state is full of Democratic elected officials, congratulations! You now have more heft in the nomination process. That's a boon for, say, DC, and maybe not so much for a state like Utah (assuming they're terribly concerned about the Democratic presidential nominee there).

Next, the not-great-but-not-bad news: The commission is recommending a shrunken calendar, precisely defined as to when states can hold contests. No one gets to go before February 1, which at least avoids a Christmas-with-the-candidates scenario. But this brings us to the bad news.

The bad news is that there remains an officially sanctioned time when the usual handful of small states gets to enjoy the spotlight; between February 1 and March 1, only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina may hold contests. This is not a change, but a codification of what happens anyway in a less-official way. And as is the case now, it's difficult to see how this would be enforceable should, say, Wyoming decide that it's not going to take this lying down and jump to January 31.

We would much prefer a situation in which states rotate within the calendar from cycle to cycle, with the size of the voter pool increasing with each set of contests, such as in the FairVote-backed American Plan for presidential nominations. And that, perhaps, is the biggest disappointment from our perspective--no meaningful structural improvement to the nomination process. While we applaud the commission for reining in some of the excesses and giving more power to the electorate over party insiders, it would have been a much bigger deal had there been a fundamental change to the mechanisms of nomination themselves.

But that's why we're here, of course. We'll keep making our case to bring more fairness and sanity to the nomination process. The Change Commission's recommendations are not a panacea we might wish for, but it's a step in the right direction.