The Republican National Convention will be contested. The main fight, however, won’t be among the candidates, but among the delegates.
Because Arizona and Michigan are holding their primaries today — two days before March 1, the earliest the Republican National Committee said they could hold the elections — each will lose half of its delegates to the convention, per RNC rules. Unlike other states so penalized (New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida), however, these two are challenging the ruling. The state legislatures set the election dates, state-party officials argue, and holding special elections just for the primaries would have cost their states money.
Advertisement
The Michigan GOP is hoping for clemency. “We would have to change the law in order to accommodate the RNC’s deadline,” says Holly Hughes, national committeewoman for Michigan. “Since the date set by the legislature was only a couple of days from March 1, we decided we should just go ahead with the election as it is.”
“We’re going to be asking for a dispensation from the credentials committee,” says Saul Anuzis, national committeeman for Michigan.
Under the original allotment, Michigan was entitled to 59 delegates: its three state-party officials (state-party chairman, national committeeman, and national committeewoman); 42 congressional-district delegates (three for each of the 14 congressional districts); and 14 at-large delegates. Under the penalty, Michigan gets only 30 delegates, and the state party has decided that, in case the RNC refuses to recognize its full delegation, 28 of them will be congressional-district delegates (two for each district) and only two will be at-large. The Michigan GOP believes “the congressional districts are a better representation of the grassroots,” explains spokesman Matt Frendewey.
The three party-official delegates, meanwhile, are eliminated. Under RNC rules, a penalized state’s party officials are forbidden to serve as delegates.
The Michigan GOP’s decision could have a profound impact on tonight’s results. The congressional-district delegates will go to whichever candidates win pluralities in the respective districts, while the at-large candidates, all two of them, will be awarded proportionately according to the statewide results, with candidates needing to get 15 percent of the vote to qualify. This setup has fueled speculation that one candidate could win the statewide popular vote but lose most of the state’s delegates to his competitors, if they prove strong in individual districts.
Anuzis, who supports Romney, observes, “Santorum appears to be playing in four to six districts, Ron Paul is playing in one or two of them, and Romney is playing in six to ten.”
But despite the plans for a reduced delegation, Anuzis vows, “Michigan is going to submit 59 delegates.”
Arizona also will submit a full delegation. Under the original allotment, the Grand Canyon State was entitled to 58 delegates; now it is entitled to 29. Because the state party allocates all its delegates to whichever candidate wins a plurality statewide, however, its electoral math is significantly less complicated.
It is party regulars, not the candidates themselves, who choose the flesh-and-blood delegates in both states. In Michigan, precinct-level officials elect delegates to the county conventions, which elect delegates to the state convention, which selects the delegates to the national convention. In Arizona, the rank and file in legislative-district meetings and outlying areas elect delegates to the state convention, which selects the at-large delegates to the national convention. Congressional-district delegates, meanwhile, will be selected by caucuses in the districts.
Will the convention recognize these states’ full slates? It seems unlikely. Michigan was penalized for going early in 2008, and the convention held its ground. Even if the convention stands firm, however, the question remains how faithful the delegates will be to their pledged candidates if the convention winds up being contested. The delegates aren’t required to back their candidates to the death. The Michigan GOP binds its delegates for the first ballot only. The Arizona GOP doesn’t even go that far — it merely requires its delegates to make their “best effort” in support of the preferred candidate.
For the dreamers, then, there’s the possibility that these delegates could go rogue.
“They can vote for whomever they want,” admits Holly Hughes. “But I’ve never seen them not vote the way that they’re supposed to vote.”
“There’s no requirement to even vote for the candidate who won the primary, although our history is such that we do vote for the candidate on the first ballot,” adds Bruce Ash, national committeeman for Arizona.
Will delegates’ sense of probity scuttle any shenanigans? Ash, for instance, pledges to obey the ruling that he not serve as a delegate to the convention. As chairman of the RNC rules committee, Ash promises, “I will not sit on the floor; I will not be a delegate under any circumstances. As the person in charge of the rules committee I should think it’s up to me to uphold the rules personally.”
Whether his fellow delegates show such moral rectitude remains to be seen.
— Brian Bolduc is an editorial associate for National Review.
@History Buff. - The Democratic party also picks its nominee by delegate selection. Our current President won his nomination by taking 'unbound' delegates from states he didn't win.
Question. Is trying to change the rules this late in the game a strategic response to keep Paul from scooping up delegates? Rumor has it, his supporters have taken many of the delegates won from Newt, Mitt, and Santorum in states that they won. And as its difficult to hold any to vote according to the plurality, Paul may have the majority going into super Tuesday without winning a single state. So is this damage control?
Or is this change an establishment's strategy to favor Mitt over Santorum?
As someone who favors a political party with a penchant for coddling and apologizing for tyrants, your comments on "authoritarian" mindset are a bit misdirected.
None of the people you list hold a candle to the Sandinistas, Castro, Pol Pot, Stalin, and other communist leaders that liberals still idolize and adore.
I should add that Pinochet handed over power voluntarily and vastly improved his country while in power. Something that no socialist or communist has ever managed to do.
Bush holding hands with a Saudi prince? He is only following in the footsteps of Clinton and Carter. Google it; you will find lots of pictures.. Obama bowed to one, interesting.
They are doing it for our sake Bubba; it's called cheap oil. Turns out it ain't so cheap. Thousands of lives and billions of $ and we are still paying 3-4$ a gallon. We should be using our own resources and not kissing up to (literally) evil dictators. Is it any wonder they hate us?
Feb. 28th: Rick Santorum is saying that Romney has no credibility while moving over to stand with Dems. telling them to vote for himself, Santorum. This means that Santorum knows that Obama and the Dems are terrified of running against Romney so Santorum goes over and stands with Obama and the Dems even if it means giving Obama 4 more years in office...Santorum is the one who has now lost all credibility....so sad.
If Romney wins the nomination then the strategy of proportional delegates will have failed because the whole point was to prevent another "McCain."
What's amazing is why not a single one of the so-called best candidates could see the opportunity presented by the new rules. So now, we find ourselves with a man of meager accomplishments (Santorum) or a man who finds the status quo so lucrative (Romney) that meaningful pro-growth reform is unthinkable. People of sound mind are actually hoping for a zombie-resurgence of Newt Gingrich.
No, people of sound mind recognize that, while Gingrich talks a good game under the right circumstances, voters consider more than just the ideas coming out of candidate's mouth. And this is why Gingrich will never be President. He is fatally flawed. It's a shame, too. He does have some great ideas and is great in most debates.
I would agree with that. Except that Nebraska and Maine select their electors by congressional districts won.
Which method should it be? I actually think that winner-take-all is one good method, but should not be the only legitimate idea. Delegates calculated in proportion to the percentage of popular vote received or by congressional districts won are equally valid principles. Each state can make its own choices - after all, it is a federal system, isn't it? What I am disturbed by is the fact that caucuses can flout the will of voters and vote in a backroom situation to select delegates, or take advantage of confusion about the system to seize delegates by stealth (much like Barack the Usurper did in 2008).
But it is going to take more than RNC fiat to get states to set their primary dates back from January or February. The problem is that everyone thinks they are a kingmaker, far more so than they really are in electoral politics. Some states need to check their egos at the door and forget about trying to make their primary among the "first."
Hardly, Pauliacs and Romneyacs can get a room to cry on each others shoulders. The rest of us will work on getting real conservative elected to the WH.
The RINO GOP/RNC is trying to rig the primaries for McCain2 aka Romney. If Romney does not win they threaten us with having Jeb decide at the convention at a brokered convention. Taking words from Nigel Farange talking about the corrupt EU leaders - "who the h*ll do these people think they are?!!!"
We are sick to death of the RINO McCains, Lindsay Grahams, Snowes and others including open-borders Rubio.
Let the public vote. Obama can be crushed in November by Rick Santorum. Romney will lose, Newt is a mess and Ron Paul is now a snarky pocket pal of Romney. Let the voters decide. Not Jeb Bush, Rove and the RINO RNC/GOP.
ToddM...you've got to be kidding. Romney has been put down by the press and by the GOP...and it's Santorum who is not 'trying' but actually rigging the vote by calling Team Obama to join him against Romney...that is a sign of desperation! Team Obama is terrified of running against Romney so Santorum joins them and begs for their vote..so if Santorum wins, it won't be a true victory because he will have won only because of the support of Team Obama who will NOT vote for him in the general election. And if Romney loses, it will not be a true loss because he will have lost because of Santorum's Obama Team help...