Subject: Here’s exactly how a brokered Republican convention would work - The Washington Post
From: "Eric Schwerin" <[email-masked]>
To: "Hunter Biden" <[email-masked]>, "Alexander S. Mackler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 21:44:56 -0400

Here’s exactly how a brokered Republican convention would work - The
Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/05/heres-exactly-how-an-open-republican-convention-would-work/?postshare=4041459992926911&tid=ss_tw

Here’s exactly how a brokered Republican convention would work

This is not the 2016 Republican convention. (AP Photo)

*Josh Putnam <https://twitter.com/FHQ> is a lecturer in the Political
Science Department at the University of Georgia. But, to political junkies,
he's better known as the founder of Frontloading HQ
<http://frontloading.blogspot.com/>(FHQ, for short), a site that tracks the
presidential primary calendar and all that comes with it. With an open
convention on the Republican side looking more and more likely, I reached
out to Josh to ask a few questions about the rest of the primary calendar
and to clear up all of the fuzziness about exactly how that convention
might work. Our conversation, conducted via email and edited only for
grammar, is below. (I last talked to Putnam about all of this in January;
you can read that chat here
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/06/why-we-should-know-who-the-republican-presidential-nominee-is-by-march-15/>.)*

*FIX: There’s only one question on anyone’s mind right now: Does Donald
Trump get to 1,237 delegates before the Republican convention or not?  Why?
Why not?*

*Putnam*: The calendar has entered an extended period of only sporadic
contests that will stretch on in fits and starts of delegate allocation
between now and the beginning of June. Gone is the sprint through March
when more than half of the total number of delegates were allocated. In
March's wake is a question without a quickly achievable answer.

Trump getting to or not getting to 1,237 is not something that Wisconsin
will answer. With only 42 delegates at stake, the Badger state only offers
a small update to the delegate tally and the assessments of the likelihood
that any candidate will reach a majority of the delegates before Cleveland.
Given the small data addition, one might be better served by looking for
points on the calendar where more delegates are on the line. There are
really only a couple of spots on the remaining calendar: the eight
day stretch in mid- to late April encompassing a number of mid-Atlantic and
northeastern states (267 delegates) and June 7 when California and New
Jersey among others hold contests (303 delegates).

That is nearly 600 delegates in areas that look to be favorable to Mr.
Trump. It is those respective caches of delegates that will go a long way
toward answering the 1,237 question. And, to be clear, the propensity of
the other campaigns to continue peeling off delegates from Trump in those
areas and in those on the more sparsely populated parts of the calendar
(see May). Trump may win later on in April, but does he win big in the
delegate count or only win contests in a fashion that will leave him with
only small delegate surpluses in seemingly favorable states?

*FIX: How much does California on June 7 matter in this delegate chase. Is
it the only race now that really matters?*

*Putnam*: California is a big delegate prize on the back end of a calendar
with relatively few delegate-rich states left. The Golden state offers 172
delegates -- the most of any state -- but that is a chunk of delegates that
is at the end of a sequence. Campaigns can miss the forest for the trees by
focusing too much on California and not enough on continuing to accrue
delegates in even the remaining small and medium sized states.

One thing is true about California's place in the 2016 process. If a
candidate is going to get to or over 1,237 -- and Trump is likely the only
candidate who can do so before Cleveland -- that cannot mathematically
occur until June 7. There are important contests before June 7, but none
looms over the process more than California does.

*FIX: The prevailing conventional wisdom is that Trump’s delegate operation
could cost him the race — with most people pointing out what happened in
North Dakota this weekend
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/03/ted-cruz-claims-18-delegate-win-after-north-dakota-gop-convention/>
as evidence. Are you seeing what happened in North Dakota happening
elsewhere?  If so, where? And are there other states we need to watch as
convention delegates get chosen?*

*Putnam*: To this point in 2016, much of the focus has been on the delegate
allocation process. Trump is winning that race and has built a fairly
healthy lead. However, there is also a parallel delegate selection process;
a process to fill those slots allocated to the presidential candidate
through votes in primaries and caucuses with actual people. And in many
cases those people -- the delegates selected -- are not necessarily
supporters of the candidate to whom they are bound for one or more ballots
at the national convention.

The early evidence suggests that Trump and John Kasich are playing catch up
and that the Ted Cruz campaign did their due diligence identifying and
activating supporters and/or potential delegate candidates before 2016.
That is to say that Cruz is organiz*ed* and Trump and Kasich are organiz
*ing*. All other things being held equal, one would rather have frontloaded
that legwork and tending to already-identified delegate candidates than to
be doing it on the fly while also simultaneously competing for votes in the
remaining primaries.

Again, it is early. Only 14 states and territories have completed their
delegate selection processes
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__frontloading.blogspot.com_p_2016-2Drepublican-2Ddelegate-2Dselection.html&d=CwMFaQ&c=RAhzPLrCAq19eJdrcQiUVEwFYoMRqGDAXQ_puw5tYjg&r=PVfSAMKtvCatkYCQjbvjrscpgjEnH1RM43Wp1evnPrI&m=6im1NKdqIADszwab13ra8uzcyo0MkH9trvCBkfyA-dE&s=nU9pkMNo3TnURd3IVyWcY6bWhDwHDsxJL_J8nRmHUvg&e=>
 at this point. That is a quarter of the states and territories,
representing a little more than a fifth of the total number of delegate to
be selected. But though the dataset is incomplete, the trend line is one
that indicates that the Cruz campaign is doing well, not just in North
Dakota, but in Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana and Wyoming among others. April
and May is when the vast majority of delegates will be selected.

There are not necessarily specific states to watch moving forward. However,
approximately 75 percent of the delegates will be selected in a manner
in which the campaigns do not have a direct influence on who the delegates
selected are; the campaigns do not have the ability to approve of or reject
delegates. It is in those states where the evidence will be clearest that
Cruz is either continuing to overperform and/or Trump is underperforming
relative to how well he did in the allocation process. Either those trends
continue unabated or there is a break in the pattern. In many ways, it is
the exact opposite dynamic -- break in a trend -- at play in the allocation
process.

*FIX: There is a LOT of misinformation out there about what convention
delegates can  — and can’t — do. Walk me through what the 1st ballot will
look like and what we know about how subsequent ballots would work?*

*Putnam*: Misinformation? About arcane delegate selection rules?

The biggest thing at this point in time is that there is a very definite
sequence to this process and most folks are giving in to the temptation to
jump to literally the last order of business on the national convention
delegates' agenda: the presidential nomination roll call vote. Standing in
the way of that endpoint to the process are a number of very important
steps.

First, who are the delegates? We are only now getting an answer to that
question and will continue to gather more information as the selection
process picks up steam in April and into May.

The delegates selected -- or rather the delegations selected -- choose who
among them will represent the 56 states and territories on the various
convention committees. Each state or territory delegation, once chosen,
selects two members from among their ranks to represent them on the
Convention Rules Committee, two others for the Convention Credentials
Committee and so on and so forth.

We need to know the delegates to know who is on the Convention Rules
Committee in particular. It is that committee that will consider and pass
any rules changes that will then go to the floor of the convention for
ratification (or a broader floor fight over rules) before all 2,472
delegates.

It is that step that is most important and perhaps most shrouded in
mystery. Until those pieces are in place, though, we really have nothing to
go on except the temporary rules that are currently in place as
holdovers from the Tampa convention in 2012. Without knowing the 2016
rules, it is difficult to assess how any roll call vote, first or
101st, will go.

However, the one thing that perhaps works in our favor is that the
campaigns currently vying for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination
have been operating as if the 2012 rules -- temporary or not -- are the
rules of the game. Candidates are racing toward 1,237 delegates
during primary season or at the convention. The campaigns are also behaving
as if the oft-discussed Rule 40(b)
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/15/donald-trump-just-hit-a-critical-threshold-for-the-gop-nomination-one-that-his-opponents-might-not/>
-- the rule setting a majority of delegates in eight states as the
threshold [for a candidate] to be placed in nomination -- is and will be a
rule at the 2016 convention. Acting like those are the rules and actually
getting close to or over either of those thresholds means that there will
be a campaign or two that will have an interest in defending those rules.

As Trump and Cruz are likely the only two candidates to surpass the Rule 40
barrier -- Trump already has and Cruz stands a good chance of getting there
too with likely wins in a handful of interior western contests ahead
(Wyoming, Nebraska, Montana and South Dakota) -- they have a potential
interest in maintaining the current rules as a means of keeping other
candidates off a first ballot vote.

A first ballot vote with just two candidates, neither of whom is north of
1,237, and something relatively close to the current rules would likely
mean an inconclusive outcome. That depends on how many unbound delegates
there are. And that may depend on whether the candidates who have suspended
their campaigns have released their remaining delegates. [The rules vary,
but in most states that have allocated delegates thus far, suspension of a
campaign is not a sufficient enough action to release bound
delegates.] Only the unbound delegates would be free agents on the first
ballot to help either Trump or Cruz over 1,237.

If those former candidate delegates are *not* released, their votes will be
called out as bound by the state delegation chair, but not recorded by the
secretary of the convention because those candidates did not qualify under
Rule 40(b). Only the bound and pledged (from unbound delegates) votes are
counted. And if no one gets to 1,237, then the process goes to a second
ballot.

5-Minute Fix newsletter

Keeping up with politics is easy now.

After the first ballot, a little less than 60 percent of the delegates will
become unbound and free agents on a subsequent vote. Either they can join
up with one of the two qualifying candidates -- Trump and Cruz in this
scenario -- or if there is enough support (a majority of delegates in at
least eight states) for another candidate, then they can join that effort
to produce another Rule 40 qualifier; another name placed in nomination. If
Cruz is as organized elsewhere as his campaign has been in states currently
selecting delegates though, he would be greatly advantaged on that second
ballot and reduce the likelihood of it going beyond that point.

*FIX:  Finish this sentence: It will take ________ ballots to choose
_____________ as the Republican nominee. Now, explain why.*

*Putnam*: I bent the rules last time we did this
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/06/why-we-should-know-who-the-republican-presidential-nominee-is-by-march-15/>
and I'll do again here.

If Trump gets to 1,237: It will take one ballot to choose Donald Trump
as the Republican nominee. That seems pretty self explanatory. A majority
of delegates means a nominee.

If Trump fails to get to 1,237: It will take two ballots (and perhaps just
one) to choose Ted Cruz as the Republican nominee. Trump has done well at
the allocation game. Cruz, though, is off to a good start in the delegate
selection game. If he has more loyal delegates -- those that would stick
with him even after they become unbound -- then he likely has sufficient
power over the Convention Rules Committee to either change the rules to
unbind the delegates or to just wait out an inconclusive first ballot for a
clarifying second ballot vote.

Eric D. Schwerin
[email-masked]

Sent from my iPhon