Other than in South Carolina, 2012 GOP Primary turnout has been somewhat flat, or below that of 2008. Up +3 in Iowa and +6 in New Hampshire, it jumped to +35 in South Carolina but dropped to -14 in Florida. It’s possible that the last minute surge by Gingrich and his debate performances brought some added excitement to the race, turning out voters in South Carolina.

South Carolina, of course, was the strongest state for Newt Gingrich. In contrast, turnout among Republican identifiers was down for Mr. Romney’s two victories so far, as well as for his near-win in Iowa.

While it’s possible to argue that Romney’s negative advertising in Florida lowered turnout, along with the lack of a special real estate-related initiative – one was on the ballot in 2008 – a closer look at the numbers still points to a problem, especially for for Romney.

In both South Carolina and Florida, district-level turnout was more likely to trend up in districts that went to Newt, and flat, or down in ones that went for Romney. Once one looks at party identification, the trend gets even worse.

Turnout was heavier than normal in some portions of Charleston, Calhoun, Georgetown, Greenville, Kershaw, Pickens, Richland, Saluda and York counties, the state election commission reported based on anecdotal responses from county elections offices. Turnout was light in Allendale, Bamberg, Dillon, Hampton, Jasper, Newberry, Orangeburg, Union and Williamsburg counties, most of which lean Democratic.

Registered Republican turnout was -11 in Iowa, -15 in New Hampshire, +20 in South Carolina – where Gingrich won – and -16 in Florida. This is not a good sign for Republicans in 2012 and perhaps an ever worse sign for Mitt Romney.

This observation is most particularly true for the nominating process of either party seeking to replace an incumbent President or the party of an incumbent who is not running for re-election.

With Iowa’s caucus and the New Hampshire primary finished, we should pause and look at a little history to illustrate how our current process, in effect, disenfranchises a majority of voters.

In 1952, Governor Adlai Stevenson of Illinois (perhaps one of that state’s last governors who did not go on to a career of making license plates)  was selected as the nominee at the Democratic convention through a series of state primaries and won the 1952 nomination at the Democratic convention on the third ballot.  Today, nominating conventions have no real purpose to them except for the public learning the nominee’s vice-presidential choice.  Bringing party professionals into the mix might spare us another Sarah Palin debacle.  Perhaps there is a role for smoke filled rooms, even though smoking would be banned!

In 1952 the process produced Senator John Sparkman as the democratic Vice-Presidential choice, an obvious sop to party bosses who did not trust the candidate Estes Kefauver, who went into the convention with the most pledged delegates. After the first two ballots Kefauver led but was overtaken on the third ballot when Stevenson was nominated.  The 1952 presidential race had earlier been thrown into disarray when President Truman announced that he would not seek re-election.  As we all know, General Eisenhower was elected President in November 1952. In 1956 Kefauver ran again and won the New Hampshire and Minnesota primary over Stevenson.  Although Stevenson was again nominated, this time around the party chose Kefauver as his running mate.

Fast forward to 1968 when President Johnson made his surprise announcement to a nation bitterly divided by the Vietnam War that he would not seek another term.  Senator Robert Kennedy won the California primary in June, defeating anti-war Sen. Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota.  Kennedy in his final words said “on to Chicago” before being shot by a lunatic, Sirhan Sirhan.  In the end, Senator Hubert Humphrey received the nomination, but lost the general election to Richard Nixon, who had stated in 1962, after losing the California governorship, that we wouldn’t have Nixon to kick around anymore.

But for the poorly-thought-out rule change the Republicans instituted for the 2012 primaries, it would have been possible, even likely, that the Republican nominee could have been decided within the next 30 days.  Thus, after the first three or four state primaries, less than three percent of registered voters could have decided the Republican nominee.  Talk about outsize influence.  States that have storied histories associated with their primaries (Wisconsin…always in April and California always in June) will have been effectively disenfranchised as will the remaining US voters in the United States which has an estimated 2011 population of 312 million people. We think the Republican rule change was rather harebrained anyway. If proportional allocation of delegates makes sense prior to April 1^st, why doesn’t make sense thereafter?

What is the solution?  There are numerous ways vastly to improve the system all of which are better than what we now have.  Former President Carter and James Baker, in a report on US elections which contains a mish mash of proposals on voter registration, proposed several serious ideas, one of which recommends four regional primaries, held after the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary at one-month intervals from March to June.  The plan would substantially expand participation in the selection of presidential nominees and give voters the chance to evaluate presidential candidates over a period of three to four months.

The Carter Baker report states:

“Think of a major election in which less than 8 percent of voters cast a ballot, yet millions of other voters want to vote but never get the chance.  While such an election is hard to imagine in the United States, that is precisely how we select the candidates for the highest public office in the land.

In recent election cycles, the races for the presidential nomination of each of our major political parties have effectively ended by March, before people in most states have the opportunity to vote.  As a result, most Americans have no real say in the selection of the nominee. Intense candidate scrutiny by the media and the public is limited to about 10 weeks.  Candidates must launch their presidential bids a year or more before the official campaign begins, so that they can raise the $25 million to 50 million needed to compete.

The Presidential primary schedule has become increasingly front-loaded.  While eight states held presidential primaries by the end of March in 1984, more than three times that – 28 states – held their primaries by March in 2004.

[We have] recommended a comprehensive overhaul of the presidential primary system.  This recommendation was received enthusiastically in numerous editorials, which expressed the view of a great many voters across the country who want a say in choosing their presidential candidates.

We believe that it is important for the parties to maintain control of their own primaries.  Therefore, we would encourage the two parties to make the needed changes in their primary schedule.  If the parties don’t take action, they risk losing that power to Congress, which should make the desired change through federal legislation if the parties remain unwilling to do so.

In the end, voters throughout America deserve a say in the selection of candidates for the most powerful job in the country.”

We would add a provision that over four election cycles, the regions would rotate so each region would have the opportunity to go first. The current system of selecting candidates is not a credit to either American Democracy or our long tradition of American Exceptionalism.  We can do better in selecting candidates for the presidency of a great and exceptional nation.

By Hal Gershowitz and Stephen Porter

A certified new vote count from Iowa shows Republican Rick Santorum — and not his rival Mitt Romney — won the state’s crucial caucuses, but results from eight precincts are missing, a local newspaper reported Thursday.

A final total shows conservative Christian candidate Santorum beat Romney, the frontrunner in the Republican battle for the right to challenge Democratic President Barack Obama in November’s election, by 34 votes, according to the Des Moines Register.

The paper cited local party officials in revealing the new figures, which jibe with the original vote result that had Romney nipping Santorum by just eight votes.

But the new certified count has a major asterisk by its side, as any one of the eight unknown precincts could have given Romney a winning margin, so the victor will never be known for sure, it said.

After a late night of vote counting following the January 3 caucuses Romney had been declared the victor, beating Santorum by an unprecedented razor-thin margin of eight votes, boosting the former Massachusetts governor’s frontrunner status.

But tallies from across the large Midwestern state continued to trickle in, and as officials chased down vote results from dozens of late precincts, Romney’s lead evaporated. Eight days after the caucuses, Santorum had a tiny lead.

By the Wednesday deadline for reporting, results from eight precincts were missing.

Chad Olsen, executive director of the Republican Party in Iowa, said party leaders will likely never know the results from those precincts because they never had the official election result forms, the Register reported.

“It’s a split decision,” Olsen said.

Read more at AFP.

With 36 percent of Florida Republican likely primary voters, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has a double-digit lead three weeks before the nation’s first big-state presidential primary, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. But 54 percent of GOP primary voters say they still might change their mind.

Twelve points back in the Republican pack is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich with 24 percent, followed by former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum with 16 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University survey finds. Texas U.S. Rep. Ron Paul is at 10 percent with 5 percent for Texas Gov. Rick Perry and 2 percent for former ambassador Jon Huntsman. This first look at likely primary voters, a more select group, can’t be compared with earlier surveys of registered voters.

There is almost no gender gap in the primary selections.

“Gov. Mitt Romney has a double-digit lead in Florida among likely primary voters. But the primary is three weeks away and the results from New Hampshire and South Carolina could shake things up in the Sunshine State,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “With more than half of voters saying they might change their minds and more than 50 percent of them backing candidates perceived as more conservative, Romney could be vulnerable if those voters settle on one candidate.”

Read more at Quinnipiac University.

The three polls all show Romney—who currently holds a slender lead in Iowa—blowing out the competition next week in his adopted home state, while former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., has received only a modest bump following his surprising surge to a virtual tie for first place in Iowa on Tuesday. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, is in second place in each of the three surveys, while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is fading. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who is staking his entire primary campaign on a strong performance in the Granite State, trails badly in each of the polls.

• Suffolk University in Boston, which has been conducting a two-day tracking poll for Boston-based WHDH-TV since Dec. 30, released its first poll conducted entirely after the Iowa caucuses. The latest results—compiled from interviews with likely primary voters on Wednesday and Thursday—show Romney leading Paul, 40 percent to 17 percent. Santorum runs third, at 11 percent, while Gingrich is fourth, at 9 percent. Huntsman is at 8 percent, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry earns just 1 percent of the vote.

• The University of New Hampshire Survey Center conducted a poll for WMUR-TV in Manchester, N.H., from Monday through Thursday. In the full poll, Romney led Paul, 44 percent to 20 percent, with Gingrich and Santorum tied at 8 percent. Huntsman is at 7 percent. But UNH also provided results for the last two days of the poll, following Iowa: Romney leads with 43 percent, followed by Paul (18 percent), Santorum (11 percent), Gingrich (9 percent), and Huntsman (7 percent).
• A new NBC News/Marist poll, conducted on Wednesday and Thursday, shows Romney leading Paul, 42 percent to 22 percent. Santorum jumped to third place, with 13 percent, followed by Gingrich and Huntsman, each at 9 percent.

Read more at National Journal.

(CBS/AP) DES MOINES, Iowa – With several attention-grabbing protests before Iowa’s caucuses, Occupy Wall Street activists proved their movement did not end when its encampments in big cities dispersed. But they also showed the group hasn’t matured into a political force, and it’s not clear whether it will become a liberal counterweight to the tea party this election year.

Following Tuesday’s vote in Iowa, on which the movement had little impact, Occupy organizers are pledging to stage more protests in New Hampshire and South Carolina as the presidential nomination process moves east. But the smaller-than-expected crowds, a muddled message that was mostly ignored by candidates, and tactics that seem to limit their appeal raised questions about its long-term viability.

“This is a sign that the way they have been trying to do it probably isn’t going to work,” said Dave Petersen, director of the Harkin Institute of Public Policy at Iowa State University, who said Occupy’s only discernible impact was tighter-than-usual security at Republican events. He said the group needed to develop leaders and a more coherent message if it wanted to make the transition from a grassroots movement to an electoral powerhouse.

Occupy protesters credited their Iowa counterparts with keeping the movement going even as they questioned tactics such as heckling candidates and blocking campaign offices.

Read more here.

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Matt Lewis to discuss last night’s vote in Iowa, the potential departure of Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann, and how the race looks now with New Hampshire and South Carolina next on the primary calendar.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Mitt Romney celebrates GOP win; 2 rivals flounder
Quitters: Why a conservative exodus is bad for Romney
To fend off Iowa attacks, historian Newt Gingrich turns to ‘passive resistance’
Matt Lewis at the Daily Caller
Matt K Lewis.com

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Matt on Twitter

Subscribe to The Transom

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.