PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTIONS
Nomination Process
and General Election
NOMINATION PROCESS
The (Traditional)
Caucus/Convention Method
1830s-1910s
• Initiated during Jacksonian Era
• Multiple layers of caucuses electing
delegates
• Culminating in national convention,
which selects nominee
• Delegates formally uncommitted,
many actually controlled by party
bosses
• Convention would actually decide
nominee; sometimes multiple
ballots
• Old-style presidential campaigns
NOMINATION PROCESS
The “Mixed” Method
1910s-1968
• How Progressives’ “Ideal”
Primary would work
• Methods by party bosses to
subvert primary
a.) “beauty contest” primary
• b.) “blind” primary
• c.) “favorite son” and “stalking
horse” candidates
NOMINATION PROCESS
The “Mixed” Method cont’d
• Percentage of national convention
delegates selected thru primaries
• 1912 Dem 32.9, Rep 41.7
• 1916 Dem 53.5, Rep 58.9
• 1924 Dem 35.5, Rep 45.3
• 1948 Dem 36.3, Rep 36.0
• 1960 Dem 38.3, Rep 38.6
• 1968 Dem 40.2, Rep 38.1
• 1972 Dem 65.3, Rep 56.8
• 1992 Dem 66.9, Rep 83.9
NOMINATION PROCESS
1968-1972 the big reforms
• 1968: LBJ withdraws, RFK and Eugene
McCarthy win primaries, HHH wins
nomination, protests
• 1968-1972: McGovern-Fraser Commission
recommends democratized caucuses:
open, public, timely, w/clear rules,
affirmative action, encouraging delegates
to state candidate preferences
• Unintended result: many states switched
to primary for presidential elections
• What if states didn’t comply? – Cousins v.
Wigoda, 1975
NOMINATION PROCESS:
THE ERA OF ENDLESS
REFORM (1972-present)
• 1972: McGovern victory followed by catastrophic
general election loss
• 1976: Unknown Carter parlays early “victory” in
Iowa to nomination, using “Big Mo”
• EARLY CRITIQUES OF NEW SYSTEM
• a.) excluded party bosses
• b.) voters too extreme and/or not sufficiently
informed (“momentum” too important)
• c.) too long and divisive
• d.) Iowa and NH too important
• e.) too many, or too few, candidates (depending on
who you ask)
• ---the issue of proportionality
NOMINATION PROCESS:
THE ERA OF ENDLESS
REFORM (1972-present)
IMPACT OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORMS
1.) Federal matching funds in primaries (how
to qualify), coupled with overall and stateby-state spending limits
2.) Big Federal subsidies for convention and
general election campaign, coupled with
spending limits
Do proportionality and $$ encourage
“nuisance” candidates to stay in the race?
Candidates (Bush, Kerry) increasingly
“opting out” of some or all Fed. funding
NOMINATION PROCESS:
THE ERA OF ENDLESS
REFORM (1972-present)
• COUNTER-REFORMS OF THE 1980s
(Democrats)
• a.) “superdelegates”---to bring Dem.
Officeholders back
• b.) “Super Tuesday”-----to shorten
the process and incr.
• Southern importance
• c.) Democrats back and forth on
proportionality: GOP tends to
reward primary winners more
NOMINATION PROCESS:
THE ERA OF ENDLESS
REFORM (1972-present)
• MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
• More and more frontloading
• % of delegates selected by the 7th
week of the primary/caucus season
• 1972 D 17%, R 17%
• 1980 D 43%, R 37%
• 1992 D 43%, R 46%
• 1996 D 74%, R 77%
• 2000 D 65%, R 68%
NOMINATION PROCESS:
THE ERA OF ENDLESS
REFORM (1972-present
• Front-loading continued
• Dates on which winning candidates clinched
nominations
• 1972 Democrat July 11th (during convention)
• 1976 Democrat June 24th, Republican August 16th
(during convention)
• 1980 Democrat June 3rd, Republican May 24th
• 1984 Democrat June 6th
• 1988 Democrat June 7th, Republican April 26th
• 1992 Democrat June 2nd, Republican May 5th
• 1996 Republican March 26th
• 2000 Democrat and Republican, March 14
• 2004 Democrat March 13
• 2008 Democrat June 3, Republican March 5th
NOMINATION PROCESS:
THE ERA OF ENDLESS
REFORM (1972-present)
• Possible Effects of Frontloading
• 1.) Quality and quantity of voter
information bad
• 2.) Candidates forced to drop out before
becoming known
• 3.) “Invisible primary” and media
interpretation more important
• 4.) Multiple races on each day means
“tarmac” campaigning
• 5.) Locking in early front runner
• 6.) Long interregnum period
• --bad news for candidates dependent on
Federal funds
PROPOSED REFORMS TO
NOMINATION PROCESS
•
•
•
•
•
COMPREHENSIVE
1.) National primary
2.) Regional primary
3.) Delaware plan (small states first)
4.) Reversing order of convention,
primaries
GENERAL ELECTION:
Criticisms of Electoral
College
• 1.) The “faithless elector” problem
• 2.) The “wrong winner” problem--• Happened only in 1824, 1888, and 2000
(1876 was a different story)
• 3.) Distorts candidate decisions of where
and how to campaign
•
•
•
•
•
Following 18 states got no visits from pres. Candidates in
2000:
WY, AK, VT, ND, SD, MT, RI, ID, HI, NE, UT, KS, MS, OK,
CT, CO, SC, VA
Following 10 states got double-digit visits from pres.
Candidates:
IA, TN, WI, MO, MI, OH, IL, PA, FL, CA
NY only got 7, GA only 6, TX only 3
GENERAL ELECTION: C
Criticisms of EC continued
• 4.) The turnout problem (may
affect other races?)
• 5.) The discouraging third party
problem (related to the negative
campaigning problem and the
narrow ideology problem)
ELECTORAL COLLEGE:
Alternatives?
• 1.) Eliminate winner take all
---congressional district plan
• ---proportional plan
• 2.) Direct election
• ---how to determine winner?
• ---plurality? Runoff? Instant
runoff?
TRANSITIONS
• Arguments for and against
bringing campaign veterans into
governing team
FOR: passion, loyalty, intimate
knowledge of new pres., sense of
public mandate
AGAINST: combat mentality,
arrogance, distance from DC, lack of
technical expertise
TRANSITIONS
• What will need to be done first
1.) Appointments to WHO, EOP,
and Cabinet
2.) Get them confirmed
3.) Own budget for new FY
4.) Joint session
speech/proposals
5.) National security handoff
TRANSITIONS
• Collective wisdom from
transition veterans:
1.) Fill WH staff first, even though media
likes Cabinet better
2.) Don’t commit to staff cuts
3.) Even though anything can happen, set
1st year priorities and focus appts.
Accordingly
• 4.) The dangers of “friendly” transitions
5.) Listen to the outgoing folks, even
though you think they hate you and they’re
stupid!