The presidential primaries are one of the most important elements of the American constitutional order. Given that general elections give voters just two starkly opposed choices, it's largely through the primaries that nuance enters the political process.
Parties define themselves by whom they select to run for president, and the ideological alignments that result end up defining the contours of political conflict.
In fact, the framers didn't envision American politics taking the form of two-party competition, so they gave no thought to how parties would select their candidates. This, in turn, is part of what makes the primaries so fascinating. While the Constitution itself is incredibly difficult to change, party nominating rules and state laws are much more flexible.
Consequently, the presidential nomination process is one of the elements of the American political system that's changed the most — and often in ways that aren't anticipated by the people driving the change.
Which leads to the last thing that makes primaries so fascinating: They are genuinely unpredictable. Conceivably almost anything could happen. Intraparty disputes over who should be nominated for the presidency are as old as the republic itself. But the modern system of determining nominees through a series of state primary elections is essentially an innovation of the s.
Before that, parties deployed a wide range of methods. The Democratic-Republicans, the dominant political party of the early 19th century, used to select candidates via a vote of the party's members in Congress.
That method let it control the White House for 20 years, and lasted until the rivalry between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson made the party splinter into the Democrats and the Whigs in the aftermath of the election. Back in , in the early days of Whig versus Democrat competition, the Whig Party even tried nominating several candidates simultaneously in their bid to block Martin Van Buren from succeeding Jackson in the White House.
In most Northern states, William Henry Harrison appeared on the general election ballot, while Hugh White got the nod in most Southern ones. The idea was that running multiple candidates with distinct regional appeals could successfully deny Martin Van Buren a majority in the Electoral College, throwing the choice to the US House of Representatives. The selection of the Whig on each state's ballot was left up to the local party.
Had the gambit worked, one could imagine the system of multiple nominees becoming entrenched. But it did not work. Van Buren won the election, and in subsequent contests the Whigs emulated the Democrats, picking a single nominee at a broad national convention with representatives from all states.
Conventions are still held today, but they are essentially publicity stunts. At best, they're counting exercises in which the point is simply to crown the candidate who already enjoys the support of most of the delegates. But historical conventions were real decision-making bodies, where a cast of locally selected elites would come together to genuinely choose someone.
That opened the door to outcomes like the Whigs drafting celebrity war heroes Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott in and , without the candidates needing to mount vigorous primary campaigns. The convention system also allowed for the emergence of "dark horse" candidates like Democratic nominee James K. Polk , who was not even considered a contender at the start of the process.
States that hold caucuses rather than primary elections generally do so due to the reluctance of the party to relinquish their influence in the process. Whilst caucuses are open to any registered party member, as it is a time consuming process, attendees tend to be very active party identifiers or those involved in grassroots community movements.
Caucuses put a premium on the organisational capacity of each candidate's campaign staff to ensure coverage and representation at each individual meeting. Typically at a caucus meeting participants gather in public venues such as school halls, and listen to speeches by those that have chosen a particular candidate to support. Caucuses can be binding or non-binding, in the same manner as primaries.
Most caucus states follow the Iowa model in that after delegates were selected at the caucuses held on 3 January , they then will progress to a county convention, then a state convention and finally to the national convention. This year, according to the rules adopted by the RNC, Republican delegates elected in January, February and March will be allocated on a proportional basis. Some states such as Mississippi, Connecticut and New York, will hold WTA primaries if there is a candidate with a clear majority and if there is not a clear majority then it will be a proportional primary.
Some states have moved to a proportional primary even though their primary is inside the April boundary. And some states will operate a WTA primary at the district level and a proportional primary at the state level. This could have a direct impact on establishing a clear front-runner for the Republican nomination and gives rise to the possibility that no candidate will have a majority of delegate votes before the Convention begins. The Democratic Party has used proportional allocation primaries and caucuses since the s.
This makes the delegate allocation process quite complicated as the formula takes into consideration the state's Democratic Vote, the Total Democratic Vote and the state's Electoral Vote. As an incumbent President will be seeking the party's nomination at the Democratic National Convention, it is expected that the Convention will be a reiteration of the party's values and that President Obama will be renominated.
Federal Election Commission allowed unlimited corporate and union expenditure for the election or defeat of federal candidates. Through these Super PACs, corporations and unions are able to receive unlimited contributions and spend unlimited funds on seeking to elect or defeat a federal or state candidate.
Whilst Super PACs can spend unlimited funds on political advertising or other activities such as voter-canvassing, explicitly supporting or against particular candidates or campaigns, they are designed to be independent. Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate their activities with any campaign nor can they make direct contributions to campaigns.
Since , New Hampshire has been the first primary in the presidential nomination process, occurring about a week after the Iowa caucus. Said primary shall be held in connection with the regular March town meeting or election or, if held on any other day, at a special election called by the secretary of state for that purpose.
The purpose of this section is to protect the tradition of the New Hampshire first-in-the-nation presidential primary. To maintain this status New Hampshire has had to push the date of the primary earlier and earlier in the year.
This year the New Hampshire primary was held on 10 January New Hampshire runs its primary slightly differently to the other States, in that the state allows independent voters known as 'undeclareds', to vote in a party's primary. This system allows voters who are not necessarily aligned with a particular party to vote in that party's primary.
If a voter is registered as a Republican or Democrat, they are unable to change their status to 'undeclared' on polling day, and can only vote in their own party's ballot. Like other primaries and caucuses held early in the schedule, the New Hampshire primaries attract a large amount of media attention both nationally and internationally. Many commentators speculate that New Hampshire is an indication of how the nation perceives each candidate; these speculations are made even more unpredictable by undeclared voters.
Trends towards front-loading do mean, however, that a win can provide the front-runner candidate with enough momentum to carry the following primaries and caucuses. Since the s the Iowa caucuses have been the first event in the presidential nomination schedule for both parties. At the time, Carter was largely unknown to the national populace but he spent a lot of time campaigning in Iowa.
Carter went on to win Iowa with Jimmy Carter's win in Iowa in captures the significance that Iowa has in the nomination process, as candidates gain attention if they perform better than 'expected'. In this way, Iowa acts as a clearing house as results prompts candidates to evaluate if they have the financial and organisational capacity to stay to the end of the race. In , precincts caucused on 3 January and these precincts conducted a presidential preference poll as well as selected delegates to their County Convention 10 March , who will then progress to a District Convention on 21 April and finally the State Convention on 16 June where delegates will be allocated to candidates for the National Convention.
South Carolina first started holding primaries in and since then has played a highly influential role in the Republican nomination process as every winner of the South Carolina primary from to has won the presidential nomination. The Nevada caucuses are largely straightforward. The National Convention of each party is where the delegates from each State will gather to officially vote for the candidate that they want as Presidential nominee.
Convention proceedings follow the rules outlined by each party's Call to Convention. Not only will the presidential nominee be selected, but also the party will nominate their vice-presidential candidate, adopt a party platform and generally discuss party matters. States compete to host each party's National Convention as the host city gains prestige for hosting the event, as well as a boost to the local economy from the influx of people that attend in an estimated 45 people are expected to attend.
In , the Democratic National Convention will be held in South Carolina, a choice that commentators mark as an indication by President Obama that the Democrats can win in South Carolina at the presidential election. This means that the United States Secret Service will be responsible for security arrangements. The order of proceedings will follow that set out in the Call for Convention which covers rules including seating arrangements, voting rights and length of debates.
After dealing with internal party matters, the National Convention will perform a roll call of states for the nomination of a candidate to contest the positions of the President and Vice-President of the United States. Each candidate nominated has the opportunity to present a nomination and seconder speech to the Convention.
At the close of the roll call a vote is taken of all the delegates and if a candidate receives the majority of votes, that candidate is declared the nominee. It is rare for the nominee not to be known prior to the Convention. The first presidential primaries were held in , and their use continued in succeeding elections; but, by the s, many states had repealed primary laws because costs were high, participation was low, and leading candidates often ignored them altogether. Some states continued to hold primaries, and occasionally, primaries did have an impact on the nomination.
Entering primaries was often interpreted as a sign of candidate weakness, and even those candidates who did enter primaries still had to court party leaders to have any chance at winning the nomination. The Democratic convention was among the most contentious party meetings in history, and dissatisfaction with its results provided motivation for the reforms that changed the nomination system and led to the rise of the current primary-dominated system.
In , as was customary, most Democratic convention delegates were selected in caucuses of party functionaries. Such caucuses were generally not well publicized, and were sometimes held more than a year before the convention. In , the majority of delegates selected in Democratic caucuses supported Vice President Humphrey who, by virtue of his position within the Johnson Administration, was perceived as a candidate who would continue American involvement in the Vietnam War.
Kennedy, together won over two-thirds of the votes cast in Democratic primaries. Humphrey, who contested no primaries, nevertheless won the nomination. The system had produced a candidate who did not reflect the views of activists, particularly on the issue of the Vietnam War, and the convention was acrimonious.
Pressure from party activists at the convention resulted in the creation of the McGovern-Fraser Commission, which proceeded to rewrite the party's roles between and The Commission mandated that all national convention delegates had to be chosen in forums that were open to all party members and conducted within the calendar year of the election.
States holding primaries had to place the names of qualified candidates on the ballot, and the distribution of convention delegates would be proportional, in order to reflect the results of such primaries.
Prior to the reforms, many states held delegate primaries in which the names of delegates, but not of candidates, appeared on the ballot. In many other states, primaries were advisory only-so-called "beauty contests" that had no bearing on the distribution of convention delegates.
In addition, the Commission gave the party the means to enforce the new roles by centralizing control over the certification of delegates within the national party organization. The most obvious consequence of the McGovern-Fraser Commission has been an increase in the number of states holding primaries. The number of states with Democratic primaries grew from 17 in , to 23 in , to 40 in the year The number of states holding Republican primaries increased from 16 in , to 22 in , to 43 in Not surprisingly, reforms have led to increased popular participation in the nominating process.
In , only 13 million Americans participated in the nominating process, while in , over 30 million Americans voted in primaries or took part in caucuses. At this point, one may wonder why changes in Democratic Party rules should have led to changes in how the Republicans select their presidential nominees.
In fact, state Republican parties remain free to choose delegates using methods that are banned by the Democratic Party--including advisory primaries and delegate primaries--and many Republican states continue to use winner-take-all rather than proportional representation in delegate selection contests.
Where Democrats controlled state legislatures and changed state laws to replace caucuses with primaries, Republicans generally adopted a primary as well, not wanting to give Democrats the chance to register new voters for primaries and gain the media attention that comes with a primary election without opposition. There is considerable evidence that the reformers on the McGovern-Fraser Commission did not intend to create a process dominated by primaries. Rather, they envisioned a system in which caucuses continued to dominate, but such caucuses would have new rules to prevent their manipulation by party leaders.
In the first post-reform nomination contest in , Democratic activists succeeded in choosing one of their own, Senator George McGovern--not coincidentally, the same George McGovern who was co-chair of the commission that wrote the new rules. McGovern was able to win the nomination on the strength of his success in caucus states, despite winning only about one-quarter of the vote in Democratic primaries.
One reason why the Democrats' reforms ultimately led most states to adopt primaries is that party leaders had quick proof that, under the new rules, a well-organized candidate who lacked broad popular support could nevertheless win in low-turnout caucuses, and they rightly feared that such candidates would not fare well in general elections.
Caucuses discourage participation because they are more complicated and time consuming than are primary elections. Moreover, many party members are uncomfortable with casting their votes publicly in caucuses rather than privately in a voting booth. Ideological candidates with a committed base of activists--like McGovern, Jesse Jackson, and Pat Robertson--have been particularly successful in caucuses.
On the other hand, primaries, with their higher turnouts, favor candidates with the support of rank-and-file supporters who are essential to the party's general election success. Although primaries attract fewer voters than do general elections, turnout in primaries has been estimated at ten to eighteen times higher than turnout in caucuses, and the primary electorate tends to be more representative of a general election electorate than is a caucus electorate.
The growth of primaries has profoundly changed the nature of national party conventions. Party leaders no longer negotiate who will be the nominee in smoke-filled rooms. Conventions are now dominated by candidate enthusiasts, and delegates simply confirm the results of the primary elections.
In the post-reform era, there has never been a national convention that was not decided on the first ballot. Although occasionally blocks of delegates will challenge the committees writing the party's platform on specific issues, for the most part, little internal democracy is practiced in modern-day conventions.
The only remaining function of a national convention is to build enthusiasm for the party's candidates in the fall election by putting on a good television show. Since the first televised national party conventions in , parties have increasingly choreographed conventions for the television audience. Parties take care to make sure that the roll call of the states and the speeches of the presidential and vice-presidential nominees take place in prime time, while any intra-party debates expected to be contentious occur when few viewers are likely to be watching.
Crotty and Jackson write, "the single big party event, the national convention, is an essentially meaningless sham, orchestrated for television. The increasing number of primaries seems to have shifted power to party supporters regarding the decision of who should be the party's nominee. This power, however, has been distributed unevenly, so that voters in states holding primaries and caucuses early in the nominating season have a disproportionate impact over the choice of who will be the nominee.
Seeking to influence the process, more and more states have scheduled their primaries earlier and earlier in the year.
Both the Democratic and Republican nominations this year were effectively determined on March 7, when eleven states--including California and New York--held their primaries. This "front loading" of the primaries has been the source of new calls for reform of the nominating process. Although some party officials like front loading because it brings a quick end to the nomination campaign and allows time for party wounds to heal, the process is clearly unfair to voters in states that hold their primaries or caucuses after the nomination has been decided.
Furthermore, front loading adds yet another obstacle to candidates who are unable to raise huge sums of money before the campaign season begins. This year, front loading stacked the odds in favor of the most well-known and well-funded candidates, Vice President Al Gore and Texas Governor George W.
Only one serious candidate stepped forward to challenge Gore, and although Bush initially faced a large field of challengers, six of the twelve original candidates withdrew before any delegates were chosen. Three more dropped out in the three weeks after the Iowa caucus. Given the importance of money in a front loaded primary season, perhaps it is the contributors who really decide who the nominees will be.
Supporters of the GOP's eventual nominee, Mitt Romney, believed that the nature of the process weakened him for the general election. The party's base of conservative activists, meanwhile, believed that the process favored the candidates with the most money, and therefore the views of often less conservative wealthy donors.
More moderate Republicans thought the process elevated a parade of unserious firebrands who were never real contenders, thereby damaging the party's image with swing voters. And Republicans of all stripes thought the unpleasantness of the process had motivated the strongest candidates to sit out the election entirely.
All of them were right: The Republican Party's presidential-nomination process fails to serve the aims of its voters. And this failure results, at least in part, from the fact that the GOP's process was never designed with conservative goals in mind. Instead, in a peculiar historical turn some four decades ago, Republicans adopted a process that was designed for the Democratic Party by its most liberal activists: New Left reformers who sought to wrest power from Democratic insiders in order to give it to their base.
Shortly after the new Democratic primary process was put in place, Republicans emulated it in almost every detail. That system was never a good fit for Republicans; in recent years, however, it has grown even more inimical to the party's interests.
There is no reason for this state of affairs to continue. Instead of preserving a primary process designed for its political rival, the Republican Party should draw on its own principles to create a better method of choosing presidential nominees. By crafting a new nomination process modeled after the process that ratified the Constitution, Republicans could provide themselves with a more dignified, more representative, and more effective means of selecting a candidate.
Presidential candidates haven't always spent a whole year in Iowa coffee shops and New Hampshire town halls trying to win their parties' nominations. Prior to , the nomination process for both parties was dominated by state political organizations, which would send delegates of their choosing to the quadrennial national convention to select a nominee.
Some state parties had opened up the process through primary elections, but many kept it closed to all but party insiders. It was this closed process that yielded Hubert Humphrey as the Democratic nominee in , despite the fact that he had participated in exactly zero primaries.
The New Left subsequently took control of this reform effort, with the intention of moving the party toward open caucuses, where passionate liberal candidates were most likely to prevail. But the New Left miscalculated. Many old-guard Democrats, rather than cede control to what they considered to be a bunch of left-wing radicals, used the freedom that the national party had given the state organizations to move toward statewide primaries instead of caucuses.
Republicans eventually followed the Democrats' lead, even though the old process had not created internal rifts in the GOP the way it had among the Democrats.
Almost as a matter of convenience to allow states to hold both parties' primaries on the same day , and with remarkably little care or consideration, the Republican Party accepted a presidential-nomination process designed by its political adversaries.
This is how America has wound up with the peculiar nomination process it now has. Whereas the original, convention-based process was the result of a carefully considered decision by politicians in the Jacksonian era to reject "King Caucus," today's mess is the product of accident and afterthought. It should surprise no conservative that unintended, negative consequences have abounded. Some of these problems are common to both Democrats and Republicans, while others are unique to the GOP.
Without doubt, one of the most troublesome aspects of the current system is its gross inefficiency. Whereas generations ago selecting a nominee took relatively little time and money, today's process has resulted in a near-permanent campaign. Because would-be nominees have to win primaries and open caucuses in several states, they must put together vast campaign apparatuses that spread across the nation, beginning years in advance and raising tens of millions of dollars.
The length of the campaign alone keeps many potential candidates on the sidelines. In particular, those in positions of leadership at various levels of our government cannot easily put aside their duties and shift into full-time campaign mode for such an extended period. In the early days of the republic, the secretary of state was often a prime contender for the White House.
Today, it would be nearly impossible for one person to fulfill the obligations of a presidential candidate and those of America's top diplomat without seriously shortchanging both responsibilities. This near-permanent campaign also requires candidates to spend an inordinate amount of time raising money just to compete for the nomination. Generally, only a couple of candidates have sufficient access to such money, and they are joined in the race by those who have essentially no money but are eager for the 15 minutes of fame they receive by sharing a debate stage with legitimate contenders.
These low-budget candidates tend to use their newfound notoriety to self-promote or to float pet policies. The result is that, before he even runs against a Democrat, the eventual Republican nominee must respond to baseless attacks and fringe ideas that can discredit the whole party.
It's no wonder that many statesmanlike candidates hesitate to run, and that those who do become less statesmanlike in the process. Taken together, this makes for a process that does a poor job of selecting viable presidential contenders.
It takes too long and costs too much, deters good leaders from running, and diminishes those who do run. The party does not end up having a sober conversation about its past, present, and future. Instead, the eventual nominee is dragged through the muck to no real purpose. Today's nominating process doesn't just weaken the GOP candidate before he faces off against the Democrats: It also fails to produce consensus within the Republican Party itself.
Candidates now do not need to cobble together a majority of the Republican electorate so much as they need to mobilize a sufficiently large minority of it and then wait for the other candidates to fold as the media declares that their campaigns are doomed. Worse, the scope of citizen participation in this charade is exceedingly narrow, despite the fact that the process has nominally been expanded in many states to include voters such as registered independents who are not affiliated with the party.
The reason is that the winnowing process regularly cuts the number of viable candidates down to only one halfway through the nomination contest, if not far earlier. For example, in , the Republican nomination battle effectively ended with the Wisconsin primary on April 3, even though Mitt Romney won less than half the vote there.
Though the reforms of the nominating process that began in the s and '70s were intended to better represent the will of the voting public, the result has been a system that does not reflect the interests and values of the nationwide Republican electorate at all.
Instead, inordinate amounts of power are held by a handful of groups that do not represent the broader party or its interests. First are the elite donors, who contribute large amounts of their own funds and also solicit contributions from others as "bundlers. Sometimes their views are broadly in line with those of the GOP electorate; more often, they have very narrow, highly personal policy priorities.
The second group is the media. Since the emergence of the modern primary system, the press has played a decisive role by assigning candidates "momentum. More often than not, the goal of these journalists is not to inform the Republican electorate but to create storylines by embarrassing candidates or forcing them to answer unrealistic hypothetical questions.
0コメント