Category Archives: Primary Elections

The Iowa Caucuses: The Two Takeaways

By DocJess | Published February 4, 2020

There are only two things to say. First, Shadow, the company that coded the web app, also provided it to Nevada for use at their caucuses on the 22nd.

Second, this was the greatest thing that could have happened to Joe Biden. Every campaign had workers at every caucus site, so they all knew the counts from both alignments. The only thing they didn’t know was the math that would determine who got how many delegates. As the candidates made their speeches before departing for New Hampshire, only the Biden campaign sent a letter to the Iowa Democratic Party basically challenging the results. Clear sign that he under-performed.

Also posted in Primary and Caucus Results | Comments Off on The Iowa Caucuses: The Two Takeaways

Ranked Choice Voting and the Primaries

By tmess2 | Published December 29, 2019

As the year comes to a close, we are approximately five weeks from the first votes of the 2020 election.  This post is to highlight one of the new features of this election — that several states will be using ranked choice voting.  (As described further below, Nevada will be using ranked-choice voting to allow early voters to participate in the caucuses.   Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, and Wyoming will be using ranked-choice voting in a party-run primary.  Maine will be using ranked-choice voting in a state-run primary.)

In the past, we have had something similar to ranked choice voting in some of the caucus states.  Typically, many of the caucus states allow attendees to realign after the first vote if their preferred candidate does not receive enough votes to qualify for a delegate.  Of course, when this process occurs at a caucus, the attendees have some idea of where the candidates currently stand and have the ability to negotiate delegate slots in exchange for moving as a bloc.  (Even at the handful of remaining caucus, the ability to make deals will be greatly reduced.  In the past, it was possible — for example — for Richardson supporters to move to Edwards in exchange for a pledge that one of the delegate slots would go to a Richardson supporter who would be a free agent at the county convention.  Under the new rules, the national delegate allocations are locked after the precinct convention significantly reducing the value of such delegate deals.)

Ranked choice voting requires voters to decide in advance whom they would support if their candidate is not viable.  For the most part, there has not been large support for moving to ranked choice voting in general elections in this country.  For a variety of reasons, the two major parties are more dominant in the U.S. than in most other countries.  (For example, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia all held parliamentary elections last year.  In those elections, the two main parties had a combined vote total of 67-76% of the vote.  By contrast, in the 2018 house elections, the two main parties had over 98% of the vote.  Even at the low point of the 1992 election, the two main parties combined for over 80% of the vote.)  The absence of significant votes for third-party candidates means that — most of the time — the winning candidate in U.S. elections gets a majority of the vote in their district.  (Again for comparison, in the 2019 elections abroad, the winning candidate only had a plurality in about one-third of the districts in the United Kingdom, and about two-thirds of the districts in Canada and Australia.  By contrast, combining the House, the Senate, and state-wide races, the winning candidate in the 2018 elections in the U.S. only had a plurality in 28 contests — less than five percent of the races. ) Continue Reading...

Also posted in 2020 Convention | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ranked Choice Voting and the Primaries

Impeachment and the 2020 Primary

By tmess2 | Published November 23, 2019

We are entering into an unprecedented situation in American history.  Three times before, the House has given serious consideration to adopting articles of impeachment against a sitting president.  The last two times — Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton — the House Judiciary Committee took up potential articles of impeachment during the mid-term election year of the president’s second term.  While there would be lingering impacts of the impeachment process in the succeeding presidential election, the sitting president was not a prospective candidate and the process was over before the primary campaign really got started (with the Nixon process ending with his resignation in August of 1974 before the mid-term election and the Clinton process ending with the conclusion of the Senate trial in February 1999 as potential candidates for 2000 were just starting their run).

The impeachment of Andrew Johnson is the closest precedent to the current situation.  While Johnson’s impeachment trial extended into May of 1868 (a presidential election year), there are some major differences that preclude that situation from being a true precedent.  The biggest, of course, is that the nomination process was entirely different back then.  There were no primaries and the state parties had strong control over their delegations which tended to follow the now-abolished block vote tactic.  While Johnson had some support to get a chance to run in 1868, that support was almost entirely from the readmitted former rebel states and he never really had a path to the nomination.  Additionally, in the days before radio and television, the primary coverage was through partisan newspapers.  While partisan television and radio networks may try to slant coverage today, it is possible for voters to view the impeachment hearings and trials in their entirety (either live or by retrieving the video later).

Now, of course, candidates wanting to be President have to run in primary elections that run from February to June and the votes in those primaries bind (to various degrees) the delegates to the national convention.   Also, because primaries are public elections, candidates have a deadline to file for running and have to campaign for votes. Continue Reading...

Also posted in Impeachment | Tagged , | Comments Off on Impeachment and the 2020 Primary

Could this be the end of the Iowa Caucuses?

By DocJess | Published August 30, 2019

The DNC has decided against Iowa’s virtual caucus plan. The Iowa plan was in response to the DNC’s requirement after 2016 that 2020 caucuses allow some sort of absentee voting. So this virtual voting was Iowa’s plan. The DNC said it was too easy to hack. And so, back to the drawing board, with a new plan to be delivered by mid-September. On the one hand, caucuses are long, not everyone can attend, and it’s a good idea to find a workaround. But, if you allow absentee voting, is it really that different from a primary?

Well, enter New Hampshire, which by law sets its primary at least a week prior to any other primary. If Iowa cannot come up with a way to please the DNC’s goal of increasing participation in caucuses without making their system a primary, then the calendar (which starts in only 5 months) may shift. Because if you cannot vote virtually, and you have to show up in person AND there has to be absentee voting, it certainly looks like a heavy lift to hold a caucus.

We know that the new Iowa plan favored activists over less-engaged voters. That is, the value of an in-person vote was greater than that of a virtual vote. And while I sadly cannot find the poll in question, I’d read that more of Warren and Sanders’ caucus-goers were in-person, compared to Biden’s. Continue Reading...

Also posted in Iowa Caucuses, NH Primary | Comments Off on Could this be the end of the Iowa Caucuses?

Catching Up with TMess, and a Local Note

By DocJess | Published August 13, 2019

I don’t just blog here, I read, too. And over the past few days, TMess has posted some riveting information, and I learned tons! I agree completely with his take on the House (link), and learned about the upcoming international elections (link) which he keeps up with, and the rest of us really should since we’re part of the world. Oh! Canada! Touch blue, make it true (for those of you who remember the 70’s).

But what really fascinated me was his information on the 2020 delegate selection plans. (Link.) The most compelling tidbit related to the changes in how Iowa will calculate its delegates. Far different from how it was through 2016. It will be a real game changer, although the math will be tricky. Remember, folks, that no matter what the national polls say, “All Politics Is Local” and it’s those primaries and caucuses that will lead to the delegate count.

I do, however, take issue with TMess’ numbers. He says that approximately a third of the delegates will be chosen by Super Tuesday. And that’s been true in the past BUT this year is different, as is my math. There are two ways to calculate delegates: one is off the total number of delegates, meaning both pledged delegates and Super Delegates. That number is 4,532. And if that’s how one counts, then “approximately a third” is okay math – the actual number is 35%. HOWEVER, the Super Delegates are not chosen at primaries nor caucuses. They are already delegates. So when you subtract the 764 Super Delegates, math indicated 3,768 pledged delegates, meaning that the actual amount of chosen delegates by Super Tuesday is 42%. Not that much of a difference, but it’s closer to half than a third. Granted, some of the dates might shift, but having both Texas and California as Super Tuesday states is a big deal in terms of pledged delegates allocated. Together, they hold 17% of the pledged delegates. Continue Reading...

Also posted in Delegate Count, Delegates, Democratic Party, Elections, House of Representatives, Money in Politics, Superdelegates | Comments Off on Catching Up with TMess, and a Local Note

Ranked Choice Voting and the Senate

By tmess2 | Published August 4, 2019

Earlier today, DocJess posted the first Sunday with the Senators of this cycle.  I am posting this follow-up on the weird features of Maine election law that could determine whether there is a Democratic majority in 2020.

In Maine, for federal elections, there is ranked choice voting — both for the general election and the primary.  While we do not yet know the full list of candidates who will be running in 2020, my hunch is that ranked choice voting probably hurts Senator Collins in the primary but may help her in the general election.

My thinking behind this is that a multi-candidate primary field would make it difficult for any candidate to get more first choice votes than Senator Collins.  However, I think that most of the primary challenge to Senator Collins will be from candidates who do not think that she is loyal to the new LePage-Trump version of the Republican Party and see her as a RINO.  The voters who support these candidates are likely to rank Senator Collins last among their choices.  So if Senator Collins only got 45% or so of the first choice votes, there would be a decent chance (assuming that everybody ranked the entire field) that the strongest of her opponents would pass her once all preferences are distributed.  A primary loss by Senator Collins would move the Maine Senate race from lean Republican to likely Democrat. Continue Reading...

Also posted in Elections, Senate | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Delegate Selection Plans — Kansas

By tmess2 | Published May 4, 2019

Somewhat late in the process, Kansas Democrats have issued their draft delegate selection plan for 2020.  Like the prior plans from Alaska, Hawaii, and North Dakota, Kansas will be using a party-run primary instead of their traditional caucus.

As with most of the other states that held a caucus in 2016, this plan authorizes registered democrats to participate in the primary either by a mail-in absentee ballot or by depositing a ballot at one of the party-run ballot centers on the primary day.  Under the proposal, the party will mail a notice to all registered Democrats in early March 2020 explaining how to vote in the primary.  Voters will be able to request an absentee ballot starting March 30.  Any absentee ballot must be mailed by April 24.  On primary day (May 2 — a Saturday), the ballot centers will be open for four hours (from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.).  

The plan indicates that the ballots will use ranked-choice voting, but does not expressly explain how ranked-choice voting will work.  In other states, if there are candidates how fail to meet the threshold for delegates, then their votes are redistributed (starting with the last-placed candidate) until all remaining candidates are over 15%.  Ranked-choice voting should be applied separately at the congressional district and at the state-wide level.  If, by the time of the state convention, a candidate “is no longer a candidate,” any at-large and pleo delegates that the candidate would have won will be proportionately reallocated to the remaining candidates.  Continue Reading...

Also posted in 2020 Convention, Elections | Tagged | Comments Off on Delegate Selection Plans — Kansas

Delegate Selection Rules — Nevada

By tmess2 | Published March 24, 2019

The tour of the draft plans from 2020 caucus states continues this week with Nevada’s draft plan.  For 2020, as it has been for the last several cycles, Nevada — along with Iowa — is one of the two caucus states in the “carve-out period” prior to Super Tuesday.  Most of the caucus states — other than potentially Washington — are small states which means that, after Super Tuesday, their influence is at the margin with most of the attention going to the large primary states.  However, the four carve-out states each have about a week of national attention giving them a significant role in narrowing the field. 

In looking at the draft plans for the caucus states, there have been two major issues that the states have had to address in light of changes to Rule 2.K of the DNC Delegate Selection Rules.  First, what procedures does the state intend to take to increase participation in the caucuses?  Second, how are the votes at the caucuses translated into the allocation of delegates? 

As to the first issue, the 2016 plan in Nevada — recognizing that casino and hotel employees in Las Vegas form a significant bloc of potential caucus participants and that the 24-7 nature of that business would mean that some would-be participants would be working during the time set for the precinct caucuses — also scheduled at-large caucuses at a different time from the regular caucuses to allow shift workers to attend a caucus at a time that did not conflict with their job along with tele-caucuses for those in the military.  The plan assigned each of the at-large caucuses a number of delegates based on expected participation at that location and two delegates to the tele-caucus.  Continue Reading...

Also posted in 2020 Convention, Delegates | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Delegate Selection Rules — Nevada

Delegate Selection Rules — North Dakota

By tmess2 | Published March 17, 2019

In 2016, fourteen states and four territories used a caucus-based system to allocate pledged delegates to the candidates for president.  This post is the third in a series on how the states that are choosing to retain a caucus-based system are proposing to respond to the DNC’s 2020 Delegate Selection Rules, particularly Rule 2.K, which have added emphasis to prior language encouraging state parties to take steps to make it easier for people who are unable to attend their local caucus meeting to participate and requiring that delegate allocation be based on the preferences in the initial round of caucuses (unlike the old rules which allowed the allocation to be made based on the preferences at the meeting that actually selected the delegates).  The new rules also include a preference for a state-run primary.  Of the fourteen states that had caucuses in 2016, four (Colorado, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Idaho) have already opted to switch to a state-run primary for 2020.   In addition, at least two other states have primary bills either awaiting the Governor’s signature (Utah) or moving in the legislature (Maine — which has some weird features that may warrant a post if it passes and the Maine Democratic Party opts in).   The first two posts covered Iowa which is sticking with a caucus system and Washington which put forward two plans (one primary-based and one caucus-based) with a final decision to come next month.  That leaves six (or eight if you include Utah and Maine) states (and the four territories) to propose plans (all of which are supposed to be posted for public comment more than thirty days before approval by the state party with the state party supposed to submit the state party-approved plan to the Rules and By-laws Committee of the Democratic National Committee by May 3).

This week’s post covers the recent draft plan issued by North Dakota’s Democratic-NPL Party.  In 2016, North Dakota had a caucus meeting at the legislative district-level and the allocation of state convention delegates from those meetings was used to allocate the national convention delegates.  Additionally, there was no provision for “absentee” votes by those who could not attend the legislative district meeting.

Reflecting the DNC’s desire to improve participation in the caucus state, North Dakota is switching from caucus meetings to what is sometimes called a “firehouse” or party-run primary as its first step.  In a traditional caucus system, voters must be present at the time scheduled for the start of the caucus with the vote taking place during the caucus.  In a firehouse primary/caucus, the party opens polling places and voters can show up at any time during the voting period.  In North Dakota, the proposal is to have local voting places which will be open for eight hours (from 11 a. m. to 7 p.m. on March 10).  In addition, North Dakota will allow mail-in absentee voting.  Continue Reading...

Also posted in 2020 Convention, Delegates, DNC | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Delegate Selection Rules — North Dakota

Delegate Selection Rules for Washington — Primary or Caucus

By tmess2 | Published March 10, 2019

Under the current national rules, the state Democratic parties are encouraged to use a state-run election when available as the “first binding step” in the delegate selection process.  Since 2016, the legislatures in several of the states that had a caucus in 2016 had authorized a primary for 2020.  In Colorado and Idaho, the draft delegate selection rules reflect that the party will use the primary instead of the caucus to select delegates.  The other caucus states and territories fit into one of several categories:  1) primary authorized but state party has yet to release its delegate selection plan (Minnesota and Nebraska); 2) no primary authorized and delegate selection plan released (Iowa); 3) no primary authorized and no legislation pending but no delegate selection plan released (Nevada); 4) legislation related to primary but no delegate selection plan released; and 5) legislation pending but tentative delegate selection plan released.   

Washington fits into this last category.   In 2016, Washington had a primary authorized but it was set for May.  Wanting earlier input, Washington opted for a March caucus.  However, the Washington legislature has passed a bill moving the primary to the second Tuesday in March but allowing the Washington Secretary of State to reschedule the primary to another date in March to be part of a regional cluster.  As California is on the list of potential partners, Washington could hold its primary on Super Tuesday.  This bill is waiting for the governor’s signature.  Given that the current governor is currently running for President, it is highly likely that this bill will become law.  Given the requirements of the national rules, the Washington Democratic Party has released two alternative plans.  One plan would use the primary to allocate the delegates.   Like many states, while delegates are allocated based on the results of the primary, Washington would retain its caucus system for the purpose of selecting the actual delegates.  (This plan would get rid of the precinct caucuses and start the process at the legislative district level.)

The other plan would keep the primary as non-binding and use the caucus system to allocate the delegates.  Under this plan, Washington would keep the precinct caucuses which would be scheduled for March 21.  In keeping with the language in the national rules requiring states to take steps to increase participation in the caucuses, the plan pledges to set up a system to allow absentee voting by those who are unable to attend.  However, the current draft does not include any details of this system.  Continue Reading...

Also posted in 2020 Convention, Delegates, Democratic Party | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Delegate Selection Rules for Washington — Primary or Caucus