Mitt Romney may not have liked it, but the new rules the Republican Party put in place for presidential the 2012 election season might have had a positive, pro-democracy effect.  In 2010, the Republican National Committee (RNC) changed its rules in order to delay the start of voting, to discourage the front-loading of state contests, and to allocate early states’ delegates by proportional representation instead of winner-take-all. Even though the 2012 rules ultimately managed to yield precisely the same result that everyone expected when the whole shebang began—Mitt Romney as the presidential nominee—they still gave primary voters a chance to at least look at other potential nominees—as weak and unsuitable as they were.

And you have to give at least some grudging credit to the RNC for its recent decision not to go back to the old compressed system full of winner-take-all contests, says Fair Vote, a non-partisan think tank dedicated to election reform.

The fact that the 2012 contest lasted as long as it did is an affirmation of the value of the changes, but there’s still a long way to go, says Fair Vote.

…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.

Fair Vote recently released [March 15, 2012] an analysis of Romney’s delegate total under the 2012 rules, comparing

the existing tally of delegates [in contests through March 13, 2012] to what it would be in two alternative scenarios: if all states used winner-take-all to allocate delegates, and if all states use a proportional method of allocation based on each state’s popular vote.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, current projected delegate totals for frontrunner Mitt Romney are far closer to what they would have been if every state had used a winner-take-all rule for allocating delegates than if they had used proportional allocation of delegates. Romney’s share of delegates currently is projected at 52.1%. If every state and territory had allocated delegates by winner-take-all, his share of delegates would be just 53.0%.

The report then offers a chart projecting the share of delegates won if all had been allocated by winner-take-all, vs. all delegates allocated by proportional representation. Under a proportional allocation system, Romney would have had 39.3% of the delegates.

To see a full state-by-state analysis, download this Excel spreadsheet.

Given the imperfections of what occurred in 2012, here’s what Fair Vote would like to see Republicans and Democrats do for the 2016 election cycle:

• 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 representation 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.

The post Republicans’ remodeled 2012 primary rules worked, sort of appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Question: When will the first 2012 presidential primary or caucus take place? Answer: Nobody knows.

Nearly four years after the presidential primary chaos of 2008, when both parties vowed never again to undergo a similar scheduling free-for-all, they’re doing it again.

We don’t even know when perennial first-out-of-the-gate states like New Hampshire and Iowa will go. The New Hampshire primary, which for decades could be reliably counted on to kick things off in early February, could actually take place in December 2011. The same goes for the [unfortunately] all-important Iowa caucuses. In fact, at this writing, 18 states’ primaries or caucuses are still up in the air, according to Frontloading HQ [FHQ], which has taken on the daunting job of tracking the chaos.

What’s going on? The jockeying centers around, of course, who gets to go first—a position that gains influence for the first state’s voters and results in a multi-million-dollar economic boom in hotel rooms, restaurant meals, rental cars, media buys and taxes. With all that at stake, who wouldn’t want to go first?

Keeping track of the maneuvering among states is not easy. FHQ has bravely waded into this mess and offers a frequently updated, color-coded map that shows states whose primary dates have been set, states with tentative—but subject-to change—dates, and those still undetermined.

Here’s how we got here, as I understand it: After the 2008 primary mess, both the Democratic and Republican parties enacted new delegate-selection rules. Both require all states—except for Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada—to wait until March 6, 2012 to hold primaries or caucuses. Any state that schedules before March 6 incurs a penalty: For Democrats, it’s a severe reduction in convention delegates. For Republicans, scheduling out of turn means that delegates have to been assigned to candidates in proportion to the votes received in the primary or caucus, rather than winner-take-all. In both cases,The effect would be to dilute the influence of the primary.  So, states have to weigh the risk of losing convention clout against the reward of all that upfront PR and revenue.

Currently, the Democratic primary/caucus schedule is in better shape than the Republicans’. That’s because Democrats were required to set their 2012 dates by May 2, 2011. Republicans have until October 1, 2011. So, in many states, the Democratic primary is on the books, but the Republican primary is still in limbo.

So, there’s a lot of pushing and shoving among states—the kind of childish behavior that is becoming standard for political power seekers. The way I see it—in kindergarten terms—some states want to jump the line and go first, but the conventional line-leaders don’t like it, and everyone’s throwing a tantrum.

In this scenario, reports FHQ, 14 states are threatening to “go rogue” and schedule their Republican primaries earlier than March 6. And that threat is creating even more havoc, because, for example, New Hampshire’s state constitution requires it to hold the first presidential primary in the nation–at least 7 days before the next one.  Under this scenario, if another state—say, Florida—pushes its primary to January 31, as it is threatening to do, New Hampshire would be required to hold its primary on January 24.  And Iowa, not to be outdone, would probably move to early January as well. There’s even a chance that New Hampshire and Iowa could move to December, depending on what happens in the rogue-scheduling battle now underway between Arizona and Florida.

That’s about as much sense as I can make of this emerging scenario at this point. As someone who votes for Democrats, I could say that I welcome the chaos, because in 2012, it’s the Republicans who are in this primary/caucus pickle. But I didn’t just say that, because electoral chaos is bad for everyone—and particularly for small-d democracy. Not being able to say, with certainty, when you’re holding elections is so banana-republic.

For a better, more detailed explanation of the ins and outs, plus a state-by-state rundown, check out FHQ. But bookmark it, and go back often, because this story is going to stay messy and unresolved for quite a while.

[Image credit: Frontloading HQ]

p

The post Presidential primary chaos: Here we go again appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Intransigent, political polarization has become the ugly, non-productive norm in American politics. For an example, look no further than the virulent, partisan fight over healthcare reform, which passed with not a single Republican vote. What happened to the moderate middle, and what can be done to stem the radicalization of America’s political parties?

Phil Keisling, former Oregon Secretary of State, says that the culprit is our system of party-based primary elections.  He wants to eliminate them, substituting statewide, “fully open, top/two primaries.” He can explain his rationale and the historical context far better than I can, so here’s the full text of his op-ed, published in the New York Times on March 23.

From now to September, virtually every state will hold primaries to select Democratic and Republican candidates for the November general election. At stake are 36 Senate and 435 Congressional seats, along with 37 governorships and more than 6,000 state legislative seats.

What can we likely expect? Abysmal voter turnout; incessant waves of shrill, partisan invective; and legions of pandering politicians making blatant appeals to party extremists. Once you understand the role that party primary elections really play, and who votes and doesn’t, the real question isn’t why our politics are so dysfunctional — it’s how could they not be?

The current party primary system was actually reformist, an early 20th-century innovation to replace the smoke-filled backrooms of party bosses. Though party leaders fought this effort, within a generation it and the direct election of senators eventually swept the country — and improved our politics considerably.

But a century later, this reform has outgrown its usefulness. We are left with a system in which almost every state still outsources its elections to what are actually private organizations. With the approval of the Supreme Court, the parties have the authority to exclude independent voters or other non-members who might seriously challenge their partisan shibboleths or taboos.

Some state parties deign to allow non-members to participate in their primaries. But very few independents bother. Most party members don’t, either. In 2006, during the last non-presidential primary cycle, most states had turnouts of only 15 percent to 30 percent of registered voters (New York had less than 5 percent). So far, the 2010 primary cycle has shown a new low of 23 percent in Illinois, and 16.5 percent in Texas, a record high for that state.

So what can be done? States should scrap this anachronistic system and replace it with a “fully open/top two” primary. All candidates would run in a first round, “qualifying” election, with the top two finalists earning the chance to compete head-to-head in November. Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, Tea-Partiers, even “None of the Above’s” could all run in the first round. Voters would certainly know candidates’ party affiliations, but no political party would automatically be entitled to a spot on the November ballot.

This would create far more races that were truly competitive, especially across the vast majority of lopsided districts where winning the party primary essentially guarantees election. In those districts, both finalists might be from the same party, but there could be genuine differences between the two that would give voters a meaningful choice.

Of course, it’s likely that the finalists of most qualifying elections would still be a Democrat and a Republican. But these candidates often would be (or, at least, act) different than those produced by partisan primaries. Gone would be the ideological purity tests of primaries, which more and more punish the Republican concerned with global warming or the Democrat wrestling with eye-popping budget deficits. Candidates wouldn’t have to practice the dark arts of the “message zigzag,” securing the base then feinting to the center. A system without partisan primaries would reward candidates who work, from Day 1, to appeal openly and forthrightly to the broadest group of voters.

To replace party primaries with this fairer election system requires no federal legislation, or even any changes to most state Constitutions. State legislators or voters could do it with simple, majority votes, as Washington State voters did in 2006. This June, California voters will have a chance to become the second state free of party primaries — a move favored by 68 percent of Republicans and 71 percent of Democrats there, according to a recent poll. I myself was the chief petitioner of an unsuccessful ballot measure to change Oregon’s system in 2008. I hope we’ll have another chance here.

The primary system gives disproportionate power to the shrillest and most mean-spirited of our partisans, while preventing civil dialogue and progress on a host of important issues. But a “fully open/top two” system would empower every American to be able to vote for the best candidate in every election. That is as good and achievable an antidote to what now ails the body politic as our democracy can hope for.

The post A solution for hyper-partisanship appeared first on Occasional Planet.