I direct FairVote, a nonpartisan research and advocacy organization known for its innovative analysis and state and local successes in advancing electoral reforms like instant runoff voting, the National Popular Vote plan, proportional representation and steps toward universal voter registration and a right to vote in the Constitution.
We are closely tracking this year's presidential nomination contest, with frequent commentaries and updated resources. See our 2012 Presidential Nomination page for more. Here are six takes on the GOP nomination contest, from how convention delegate allocations are not reflecting the party's goal of proportional representation to the role of campaign spending and voter turnout.
Winner Take Too Much? GOP delegates don't reflect proportional representation
This year there has been much talk of the impact of new rules governing the Republican presidential contest adopted by the Republican National Committee in 2010. The new rules seek to ensure more states have meaningful contests and to delay the start of primary campaigning (a goal undone by Florida keeping its primary in January). The new rules also require states holding contests before April 1st to use proportional representation to allocate delegates (meaning theoretically that 25% of the vote earns 25% of delegates).
Before 2012, many early GOP state parties used winner-take-all voting rules where the popular vote winner earned all of that state's delegates (meaning 25% of the vote could mean 100% of delegates if that candidate led the field). But proportionality in this year's contests is in the eyes of the beholder. Some states like Oklahoma have rules that truly reflect that goal, but others like Florida and Arizona have flagrantly violated the rule and allocated all delegates to their statewide winner- inviting a challenge to those delegates at the Republican convention this summer. In many other states, quirks in their rules, along with a very loose definition of what defines "proportionality," have led to extreme deviations from proportional representation. A few examples:
FairVote has compared the current New York Times tally of delegates to what it would be in two alternative scenarios: if all states used winner-take-all and if all states used a proportional method of allocation based on each state's popular vote.
Contrary to what many outlets are saying, the actual delegate count is far closer to what it would have been if winner-take-all rules had been used rather than a fully proportional system. Under all three scenarios, Rick Santorum gets between 25% and 30% of the vote. The big difference would be that Ron Paul, who has not won a contest, would have no delegates and would have far more delegates with a proportional system. Using a proportional system that accurately reflected voter preference to date, Mitt Romney would go from 54.7% of delegates down to 38.9% of delegates. Winner-take-all would only give him a boost of 2.6% in his delegate share.
To see a full state-by-state analysis, visit here.
Plurality Rules? How GOP voting system can turn losers into winners
The Republican candidates have contested 22 states through March 6th. Only five states have been won with more than 50% of voters: Mitt Romney winning in his home state of Massachusetts (72.2%), in Virginia (59.9%, where having only two candidates and a ban on write-ins made a majority win inevitable) and in three western states with strong Mormon populations, Nevada (50.1%) , Wyoming (55.7%) and Idaho (61.6%). The remaining states have all been "won" with less than 50%, including Iowa with less than 25%. On Super Tuesday, a majority of the 11 contests were "won" by a candidate who earned less than 40% of votes cast:
It's a near-certainty that several of the 17 plurality-win states were "won" by a candidate who would have lost if matched that day against their top opponent. Such "spoiler" dynamics allowed by the current voting system are widely understood, but rarely questioned as undercutting the legitimacy of outcomes. Consider excerpts from two columns in the Washington Post this week by E.J. Dionne and Harold Meyerson:
This siphoning of votes and potential super PAC skullduggery is a direct product of a voting system that doesn't require a true majority of the first round vote to "win" a state. Given that states could not easily hold runoff elections for nominations, instant runoff voting would be a sensible system for determining the real preferences of voters in each state contest. It's already used by Utah Republicans in many of their internal elections and has been adopted in a growing number of U.S. cities and other nations.
Voter Turn-off? Voter turnout down overall and in single digits in key contests
Americans' disenchantment with their political system is reflected by historically low favorability ratings for Congress, but also threw a more concrete measurement: voter turnout. Turnout lagged in major races for governor and mayor last year, hitting historic lows in gubernatorial races in West Virginia, Kentucky and Louisiana and in mayoral race after mayoral race. With some exceptions, the Republican contest is the same despite more voters being available to vote in the Republican field because the Democratic primaries are uncontested.
Turnout in the 22 states to date is down almost 10% from those same states in Republican contests in 2008, with turnout in a third of those states dropping by more than 20%. Consider these turnout figures, as detailed by George Mason professor Michael McDonald with participants as percentage of all eligible voters in that state:
The highest state turnout on Super Tuesday? Georgia, which still had only 15.8% of its eligible voters participate in a major party primary. This numbers suggest what many expect to be true: turnout will be down this November from the 61% rate of participation in 2008.
Does Money Buy Elections? Don't tell that to Rick Santorum
The Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case in 2010 is likely to unleash more money in politics than ever before, especially in the form of spending by super PACS and 501(c)(4) organizations that can receive unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations and unions. The debate over Citizens United is intense, but we should keep in mind the undeniable fact that in most elections, relatively few voters make their decisions based on campaign spending in their state or district. That voter consistency in the face of big spending is what makes most states "safe" in presidential elections. It's what makes partisan gerrymandering such an effective tool.
The Republican contest provides a window into how money matters -- and how it doesn't matter. If as a thought experiment one were to reverse the money raised by Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum for their own campaigns and for associated super PACs, there's no doubt that Santorum would have won key contests that he lost -- Ohio and Michigan being the best recent examples. But he still would have lost other contests in states where Romney has a strong base of support. In other words, Romney's huge financial edge only matters in small degrees, not large ones.
Consider the money raised directly by their campaigns, as revealed in the New York Times:
Money raised through January 31:
Yet despite this deficit (one magnified by super PAC spending), Santorum finished first in Iowa while being heavily outspent by all other major candidates, including Texas governor Rick Perry. On February 7th, just after the January 31 filing period, Santorum swept three contests in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri. Since then, he barely lost in the big battlegrounds primaries of Michigan and Ohio and won in other states like Tennessee, Oklahoma and North Dakota. He's accomplished these strong results despite much less super PAC spending on his behalf, a much-criticized debate performance before the Arizona primary and highly controversial statements about the value of college and the separation of church and state.
What Santorum has to help his candidacy is the endorsement of major evangelical organizations that endorsed him after the Iowa caucuses. He also has had debate performances that, while not necessarily resonating with everyone, connect with key voting blocs within the Republican Party. The votes Santorum has earned in these non-monetary ways does not mean campaign spending doesn't matter. But it does show how money gains its greatest power when shifting a few percentage points can flip a loss into a win.
Paul Up and Romney Down? Compared to 2008, Ron Paul is having the better year
Throughout the 2012 contest, FairVote has tracked how Mitt Romney (see Romney vs. Romney) and Ron Paul (see Paul vs. Paul) have fared when matched against their own performances in 2008. The results may surprise you:
One refrain of Inside-the-Beltway pundits is that Republicans would be better off without an ongoing contest. Looking no further than the latest polls, they assume that dips in overall favorability ratings for frontrunner Mitt Romney indicate that it's the ongoing Republican contest that is his problem. Behind this logic is the implicit assumption that Romney's efforts to earn true majority support in the Republican Party in states across the nation weaken him for the fall campaign -- that the Republican agenda in fact is a minority one, and that the sooner Romney can ignore what many Republicans believe, the better it is for is party.
This same claim was made in 2008 during the Democratic contest: Republican nominee John McCain could bask in his premature victory (one grounded in the GOP's frontloading of winner-take-all contests) while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton contested every contest into June. But it's inconceivable to imagine Barack Obama carrying Indiana and North Carolina in the general election without the intensely competitive primaries in those states. It's also true that competing in all states allowed a relative newcomer on the scene -- a junior senator from Illinois and the nation's first racial minority to be a major party nominee -- to introduce himself directly to more voters, while indirectly introducing himself to the country through ongoing television coverage of the nomination campaign. He also improved as a candidate in debates and in handling adversity.
Mitt Romney may not end up as the Republican nominee. He may not defeat Barack Obama in November. But he would benefit from becoming a better campaigner -- and proving yourself under fire is a great way to do so. As a religious minority (a Mormon), he also can benefit from a campaign to gain more support from more Republican voters, especially evangelical Christians. Come this fall, the narrative of the campaign likely will be either that GOP nominee Romney was ultimately strengthened by this nomination contest or that the party turned to another nominee because Romney was unable to improve as a candidate and connect with enough Republican voters.
Aside from electoral calculations about November, it's a dangerous precedent to suggest it's better to have contests where fewer states and fewer voters matter. Under the current RNC rules, more states will have real contests that matter and, as a result, more voters will matter. In a representative democracy grounded in the values of one-person, one-vote, we should be wary of giving up on the value of giving all voters a chance to make a difference.
Follow Rob Richie on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Rob_Richie
The Daily Nebraskan: Mandatory Voter ID Disenfranchises Poor, Students, Elderly
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Richie offers this helpful observation about the prolonged contest between Clinton and Obama: "It's also true that competing in all states allowed a relative newcomer on the scene -- a junior senator from Illinois and the nation's first racial minority to be a major party nominee -- to introduce himself directly to more voters, while indirectly introducing himself to the country through ongoing television coverage of the nomination campaign. He also improved as a candidate in debates and in handling adversity."
I would suggest that the extended Democratic primary contest in 2008 also gave progressive voters a chance to really see, hear and understand a universally known politician in much more authentic, clear, and specific ways, but to Hillary Clinton's detriment rather than her advantage. When they got to know Hillary Clinton, a majority of the American people did not find her trustworthy or honest, in stark contrast to both Obama and McCain. http://www.gallup.com/poll/105097/perceived-honesty-gap-clinton-versus-obama-mccain.aspx
vote because you have a voice!!
vote ron paul to keep it that way!!
The Democratic 08 primaries were between two candidates who largely agreed on the issues, and largely appealed to the same identity groups. It was mostly about who was the better candidate. Romney and Santorum don't exactly disagree on any substantive issues, but they do represent different wings of the party, with different degrees of emphasis on different planks of their common platform.
Democracy as we know it has failed and that is why people like Hitler and Hamas thrive under a democratic system
being able to exploit the masses who for the most part are driven by emotion and crowd mentality.
The best form of government is what we call an "intellectocracy".
Stay tuned since I will be giving you the details over the coming weeks
The United States are simply too big for most legislation based on cultural preferences, and that legislation which is sufficiently universal has usually already been handled at the state level. Nor were we ever intended to become a monoculture - at the time the US was founded, there were already at least four major cultural strains and the number has only grown since. It was designed with that fact in mind, leaving domestic affairs to the states while managing foreign affairs and inter-state matters and relations.
The actual number of delegates will probably not matter.
BUT ALL AMERICANS SHOULD BE SHOCKED, that this party tolerates this naked theft of the public vote.
If the party apparatus in IOWA cannot conduct these caucuses without "LOSING" the results from 8 precincts, they should be disallowed from participating in the convention altogether.
ALSO, the US Justice Department needs to supervise the general election.
I am a progressive Dem, and don't really care too much about how this nomination comes out EXCEPT, that as an American, I am horrified that this level of dishonesty is accepted as not really important.
I'd also add in candidate ranking and national (or state) voting "holidays" like one sees in most civilized nations.
Our nation's history of elections has far more differences than people realize. For the first decades of the country, there was no "first Tuesday in November" vote for Congress -- -election days took place throughout the year in different states.
I disagree we can't win proportional representation in the US. Those seeking reform have generally been told their reforms can't happen -- at least some of the time those reformers still win.
In the 21st Century, we should be empowering voters and citizens, not "delegates" and "electors".
Something has to change. This current 3 ring election circus and reality show is both a joke and exhausting, not to mention a huge waste of time and money.
Only thing is...no Diebold machines and total transparent counting on LIVE TV!!
Hint.... I support Ron Paul:-)
Voter turnout is low in general elections also. Instant runoff would help change that because voters could vote "for" a candidate without unwittingly helping the elect the greater evil. Right now, in November, I'll vote against the lousier candidate by voting for an opponent likely to defeat the lousy candidate. I'd like to see instant runoff in all the elections, primary and general alike.
Another initiative that would greatly improve turnout is the National Popular Vote initiative.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
Right now, general elections for the presidency revolves around a few "swing" states. With national popular vote, everybody's vote would count, whether it's a Democrat in Alabama, or a Republican in Massachusetts, and if you know your vote counts, you'll turn out.
As far as Congress is concerned, it seems to me that the primary concern is to vote for the member of the party (team) that I want to control the committee chairmanships, since that controls legislation that is brought to the floor for a vote. The individual differences between particular candidates is secondary.
The thing about it is, 3rd parties would take off. You could vote for a 3rd party candidate without inadvertently contributing to the election of the "greater evil". I think a lot of Americans are looking for a way to do exactly that, and that is the motivation to learn and understand instant runoff.
Technically accurate, but completely misses the point. Just a few percentage points was just enough to tilt the balance in Michigan and Ohio, and enough to win the nomination.
Elections are general or lost by a few percent -- which Romney can buy with his mountain of cash.
Just as he's now bought the nomination, against the will of a clear majority of Republican primary voters (who split their vote among other condidates) he will to buy the presidency -- and may succeed.