Rudy Takes All?

A good point from Petey:

Specifically, I know that Dem primaries are basically proportional. In other words, if you win 30% of every Dem primary, you'll end up with around 30% of Dem delegates.

But I have a vague impression that GOP delegate selection rules include Winner Take All primaries. Or in other words, you could win 30% of every GOP primary and end up with 50% of delegates.

Right. Democrats normally allocate delegates proportionally to all candidates who pass a 15 percent threshold, whereas Republicans work like the electoral college where if you win a plurality of the state's voters, you win the state. Thus, it's possible in principle to secure the nomination with a fairly small proportion of the total vote. That only works, of course, if more than one viable opponent stays in the race, but it could work.

Comments

Though that's no longer the case in the California GOP primary, I believe. Didn't they change it such that you now win all the delegates per congressional district? Cali has 54 of 'em.

Posted by russ | May 10, 2007 10:13 AM

There are actually a few GOP exceptions like California, where three delegates are assigned for every congressional district. It's actually less fair than the electoral college - a Republican who wins Nancy Pelosi's district and its 10 (or however many) Republicans will get as many delegates as a Republican who wins Dana Rohrabacher's district and its legions of Orange County businessmen.

Posted by Dave Weigel | May 10, 2007 10:15 AM

I'm not sure your point about Democrats is entirely correct - when Jerry Brown won the Connecticut primary in '92, he got fewer delegates than Clinton due to some obscure rules that my 18-year-old self didn't understand and that I haven't bothered to look up since. It was either some bonus for whoever happened to be in the overall lead or, more likely, a bunch of superdelegates who could go with the party insiders' choice no matter what the voters said. Maybe this has changed since then; I couldn't say.

Posted by The Navigator | May 10, 2007 10:16 AM

Did you notice something remarkable about that article. It claims the Giuliani strategy is to deempasize early states in favor of Florida and the early feb states. That makes perfect sense in iowa, where I know he's quite weak, but New Hampshire is not only northeastern, but very socially liberal, far more so than Florida primary voters.

I know he's weaker there right now, but that's because they pay more attention now than in normal states. Now Florida goes with the frontrunner, but in 08 they'll go with whoever wins the early states. The Giuliani strategy seems like madness to me.

Posted by David Weman | May 10, 2007 10:22 AM

I dunno the rules for every state obviously, but they've probably changed. I think 92 or 96 was the last with winner takes all for the dems.

Posted by David Weman | May 10, 2007 10:25 AM

Last I checked, Republicans were also heavily tilted towards caucuses. You could basically take the nomination without having to win a single primary. That may have changed, but keep in mind what happened in 2000. People remember McCain in New Hampshire, but thats because Bush thought he already won. Why? Because of the Iowa Straw Poll in August 1999 that drove everyone away from the race. The party wanted a candidate in place before January 200 to give a full year to campaign. And it basically got that.

Posted by Rob | May 10, 2007 10:35 AM

The DNC mandates that all primaries be proportional with a 15% threshold. Generally, the RNC doesn't tell states how to hold primaries. As a result most states choose to hold winner take all primaries because that provided an incentive for candidates to campaign more there.

Posted by Jack | May 10, 2007 1:18 PM

Here's a relevant story today from Matthew's umbrella publication.

Posted by Petey | May 10, 2007 5:15 PM