THE EVOLUTION OF THE
PRESIDENTIAL
NOMINATING PROCESS
N. R. Miller
Clones, Spoilers, and Nominations
When I was 12 years old I was nominated to be treasurer of my
class at school. A girl named Michelle was also nominated. I relished
the prospect of being treasurer, so I made a quick calculation and
nominated Michelle's best friend, Charlotte. In the ensuing election I
received 13 votes, Michelle received 12, and Charlotte received 11, so
I became treasurer.
It would be widely agreed that it would be attractive for my
stratagem not to be feasible. Indeed, the institution of parties helps
insure that candidates with similar constituencies do not split the vote
they can attract.
Nicolaus Tideman, “Independence of Clones as a Criterion for Voting Rules,”
Social Choice & Welfare, September 1987
• Lesson: the girls should have held a nominating convention
or primary election.
Clones, Spoilers, and Nominations (cont.)
• Duverger’s Law:
– Given politically ambitious candidates, single-winner
elections produce (in equilibrium) two-candidate
contests and sustain a two-party system.
• Conversely, parliamentary systems using proportional
representation in large multi-winner districts tend to produce and
sustain multi-party systems.
• Presidential elections are intrinsically single-winner.
• Washington’s Administration: a “grand coalition.”
– Conflict between Jefferson vs. Hamilton
• Jefferson was blocked in the cabinet, therefore he went
to the country to start a backfire [i.e., the DemocraticRepublican party].
E.E. Schattschneider, Party Government, 1942
Clones, Spoilers, and Nominations (cont.)
• The opposition to the incumbent candidate or party needs to
– coordinate its efforts and concentrate its votes on a single
candidate, and
– thereby avoid clone candidates who are spoilers to each other,
– by conducting some sort of authoritative nominating process.
• The incumbents then must do likewise in response.
• Recall that the framers of the Constitution tended to view
– the original Electoral College as a (non-partisan) nominating (or
screening) body, while
– the House of Representatives would act as a (non-partisan) electorate.
• But the two-party system (once accommodated by the 12th
Amendment) made the Electoral College vote (almost always)
decisive.
• Thus the parties themselves had to devise some kind of nominating
process that would be used prior to selection of Presidential electors
The Congressional Caucus (1796-1820)
• Initially, each party’s Congressional Caucus would agree
on a candidate for President and Vice President.
– The Congressional Caucus was viewed as a
temporary expedient that ran counter to
• the principle of separation of powers and
• the desire of the framers that the President not be dependent
on and subservient Congress.
• As sectionalism developed, each Congressional Caucus
suffered from regional imbalance.
• Minor parties could not use this nominating device.
• In 1824 and thereafter, Andrew Jackson and his
supporters denounced "King Caucus.”
– Crawford had been the caucus nominee.
The National Nominating Convention
• The Democrats held the first major party national
nominating convention in 1832 to renominate Jackson
for a second term.
– Such a device had been pioneered by a minor (Anti-Masonic)
party.
• Basic structure and rules:
– scope of decisions
•
•
•
•
Presidential and Vice-Presidential nomination
party platform
credentials
party rules
– apportionment of delegates
•
•
•
•
twice total Congressional representation
adjustment for party strength
expansion of delegations
fractional votes
The Nominating Convention (cont.)
• Basic structure and voting rules (cont.): roll call votes
– by state delegation
• delegation caucuses
– split votes vs. "unit rule” (winner-take-all)
• procedural issues
– simple majority rule
• nominations
–
–
–
–
Democratic 2/3 rule (1832-1936)
otherwise absolute majority
repeated ballots
no elimination
» “smoke-filled rooms” between ballots
The Nominating Convention (cont.)
• The evolution of the national nominating convention:
– permanence of structure and form, but
– radical changes in composition and process.
• The Party-Dominant System (1832-1908)
• The Mixed System (1912-1968)
• The Candidate-Dominant System (1972-present)
James W. Ceaser, Presidential Selection: Theory and Development, 1979
Three readings (Bryce, 1888; Heclo, 1972; King, 1981), one pertaining to each
system.
The Party-Dominant System
• Party organization is based on
– state and local political machines that are hierarchical,
patronage-based, and controlled party leaders ("bosses").
• Presidential (and other) party nominations:
– composition of state delegations and delegate votes are
“givens,” i.e., controlled by party "bosses.“
• The strategic implications for prospective Presidential
candidates:
– quiet courting of party bosses who control delegations.
– convention becomes in effect a “weighted voting game.”
• Blocks of votes are controlled by party leaders,
– not by Presidential candidates.
• The party leaders want a Presidential/Vice Presidential
ticket that
– will help their state and local party tickets, and
– provide federal patronage by winning nationally.
The Party-Dominant System (cont.)
• Convention decision making
– consensus nominations
• renominating an elected incumbent
– factional fights
– multi-ballot conventions
• "smoke filled rooms“ between ballots
• "stalking horse" stratagem
• "dark horse" candidacies
– Vice Presidential nomination
• as a bargaining resource or
• for ticket balancing
• conciliating factions
• Consequence: mediocre nominees (and Presidents)?
James Bryce, "Why Great Men are Not Chosen President," from THE AMERICAN
COMMONWEALTH (1888)
Primary Elections
• Primary elections:
– official state-run elections to select (major) party nominees
– introduced in many states beginning about 1900
• General typology of primary elections:
– Direct vs. indirect primaries
• Direct primary: voters choose directly among prospective
nominees
• Indirect primary: voters choose among (possibly pledged)
prospective delegates to a nominating convention
– Open vs. closed primaries (oversimplified – there are varieties of
each and other types)
• closed primary: voter registration by party, only party
registrants can vote in party primary
• open primary: no voter registration by party, voters chose on
primary election day which party primary to vote in
Presidential Primaries
• (State) Presidential (indirect) primaries were introduced
in some states beginning in 1912.
– Delegate selecting primaries
– delegate-oriented
– candidate-oriented
• mode of election
– statewide
» winner-take-all
» proportional
– districts
– Delegate binding primaries
– “Beauty contest" primaries
The First Revolution in Presidential
Nominations
• Party-dominance compromised by the opportunities that
prospective Presidential candidates gained to bypass
established party leaders/”bosses.”
– especially through Presidential primaries,
– but also through
•
•
•
•
mass media
early polls
mobilization of "amateur" party activists
use of professional political consultants, etc.
• This created the Mixed System of Presidential
nominations.
Constraints on President Primaries
• Party organizational objections to [Presidential] primaries:
– party leaders no longer wholly control of nominations;
– primaries are divisive and disruptive, promoting party factionalism;
– primaries waste resources that should be conserved for the
general election.
• Party organizational mitigations of effects negation of
Presidential primaries (1920s-1950s):
–
–
–
–
outright repeal
separated from delegate selection
unpledged delegates
run "favorite son" candidates
Mixed System of Presidential Nominations
• Strategic implications:
– Prospective candidates may openly “throw their hats in the ring” and
do so early.
– They may wage overt campaigns to influence delegate selection
and votes.
– They can demonstrating electoral prowess by entering and winning
Presidential primaries,
• but they risk demonstrating electoral weakness by entering and losing
primaries.
• “Outsider" vs. “Insider" strategies for seeking nomination:
– Outsider: use new opportunities to bypass party leaders by entering
primaries (or threatening to do so)
• Outsider must assemble personal campaign organization
– and raise a lot of money.
• Outsides face tactical considerations in deciding which primaries to
enter.
• JFK (and HHH) in 1960
– Insider: seek nomination in manner of party-dominant system
• Denounce presidential primaries as “hogwash” (HST in 1948)
• LBJ in 1960
• HHH in 1968
Mixed System (cont.)
• At the conventions:
– Multi-ballot conventions still quite likely
– Bargaining is now between candidate organizations, rather than
state party leaders
– Leaders want guess who winner will be and support him early
• “bandwagon effect”
• FRBC / FKBLA
• Consequences -- better candidates (and Presidents)?
– weaker party loyalties put more emphasis on candidate qualities
– selection method tests for Presidential qualities
• macro/electoral skills
• micro/bargaining skills
– nominee usually exhibits combination of
• demonstrated electoral appeal
• professional “peer review” (though not to extent of a British
PM)
Heclo, “Presidential and Prime Ministerial Selection” (1972)
Democratic Party Reforms and the Second
Revolution in Presidential Nominations
• Historical state party sovereignty in delegate selection
– 1948 "Dixiecrat" walkout
– 1952 Democratic "loyalty" requirement
– 1964 Mississippi "Freedom Democratic" delegation
• compromise and rules change
– 1968 Democratic convention
• mandate for “party reform”
• The development national party rules: McGovern Commission
– banned/discouraged
• closed/untimely party caucuses
• delegate-oriented primaries
– endorsed
• open caucuses (for pledged delegates)
• candidate-oriented primaries
– encouraged/required proportional representation of
• candidate preferences
• selected demographic groups of delegates
Democratic Party Reforms (cont.)
• Actual consequence: proliferation of candidate-oriented
Presidential primaries, which
– required changes in state laws, and therefore
– applied to Republicans as well as Democrats.
• Democratic (and to a lesser extent Republican) Rules
have been repeatedly tweaked,
– and generally made a bit less demanding.
• Beginning in 1984, unpledged “superdelegates” have
been added to state delegations on the Democratic side.
– Such people who qualify as delegates on the basis of holding
(present or past) public or party office or other status, and
– are expected to place long-term party interests above immediate
candidate preference.
The Candidate-Dominant System
• Strategic consequences of party reform
– Obliteration of the "insider" strategy
– We're all "outsiders" now
– All prospective candidates must
• declare early (now upwards of two years in advance)
• assemble a large personal campaign organization, and
• raise a lot of money to fund it.
– Nominating contest becomes a "marathon"
• extending over a year or more,
• candidates must contest delegates almost everywhere,
• often by mobilizing factions (vs. building coalitions).
Candidate-Dominant System (cont.)
• Candidate strategies:
– some choice on what states to emphasize
– the activist, money, straw poll, and polling “primary”
– frontrunner (if any) seeks early “knockout” and “momentum”
• importance of earliest caucus and primaries (e.g., IW, NH, SC, etc.)
• Super-Tuesday
• front-loading (vs. back-loading) primaries
– one-ballot ratifying convention
• Why doesn’t (Democratic) proportional representation
– deny any candidate a majority of delegates prior to the
convention and produce an "open" convention?
– It might have done so in 2008 (especially if a third candidate had
remained in the contest)
• An open multi-ballot convention would be very different
from those under the earlier systems.
Candidate-Dominant System (cont.)
• Consequences for candidate selection
– candidate entry and deterrence
– office base (ex-Governors, Senators)
• Consequences for party competition
– Democratic dispersion vs. Republican cohesion?
• but this may be reversing
• Consequences for governing
– testing for governing experience and skills
– disconnect between Presidential and Congressional wings of
each party
Anthony King, “How Not to Select Presidential Candidates: The View From
Europe” (1981)
A National Presidential Primary?
• Constitutional problems
–
–
–
–
Part of National Popular Vote constitutional amendment?
Can’t be accomplished by NPVP
Runoff?
Regional primaries?
• Advantages of sequential state primaries?
– Less known candidates can gain incremental strength and
resources
– May lead to sequence of (more or less) straight fights
– At least under mixed system, allowed a "sober second look" at
convention time.
Effective Presidential Selection
• “Democratizing” the Presidential selection system has
pushed effective selection earlier and earlier (and made it
much more expensive)
• Who will be the next President?
Answer
– House election
[“19 times out of 20”]
– Electoral votes
[two-party system]
– Selection of electors [pledged electors]
Jan. 6
Dec. 15
Nov. 5
• Who will be the party nominees?
– Conventions
– Late primaries
– Early primaries
[party-dominant system]
[mixed system]
[candidate-dominant system]
* except Dems 2008 (and Reps 1976)
July-Aug.
Late spring
Early spring*
The American “Party Systems”
• Historical party systems separated by realigning
elections or periods:
Framers' Non-Partisan System (1789-1792)
First Party System (1796-1816)
Democratic-Republicans
vs.
Federalists
(agrarian/labor)
(commercial/financial)
(mostly South & “West”)
(Northeast & especially N.E.)
Congressional Caucus nominating system
Era of Good Feelings and One-Party Factionalism (1820-1824)
collapse of Federalist Party
collapse of Congressional Caucus
American Party Systems (cont.)
Second Party System (1828-1852)
Democrats
vs. Whigs (Nat. Reps.+ Anti-Masonic)
(agrarian and lower-class)
(commercial and upper-class)
largely non-sectional
rise of mass parties and campaigns
origins of party organization based on patronage
greatly increased franchise and turnout
creation national nominating convention
extensive third party activity
Civil War Disruption (1856-64)
Democrats
(pro-South)
vs. Republicans (N. Whigs + Free Soil)
(North)
American Party Systems (cont.)
Third Party System (1868-1892)
Democrats
vs.
Republicans
(agrarian + labor + immigrants)
(commercial/industrial)
(South plus some North)
(most of North)
very close and high-turnout elections from 1874 onward
frequent divided government
after 1876, consolidation of “Solid South”
rise of political machines based on patronage
highpoint of party-dominant nominating politics
introduction of Australian ballot
agrarian protest third party movements (Populist Party)
American Party Systems (cont.)
Fourth Party System (1896-1928)
Democrats (+ Populists)
vs.
Republicans
agrarian plus immigrants)
(commercial/industrial)
(South plus some West and some cities)
(Northeast & Midwest)
maximal sectionalism
black disenfranchisement in the Jim Crow South
rise of Progressive political reforms
voter registration, primaries, initiative and referendum, etc.
decline of voting turnout
rise of “mixed system” of nomination (with Presidential primaries)
political machines begin to decline
American Party Systems (cont.)
Fifth (New Deal) Party System (1932-1968)
Democrats
vs.
Republicans
(labor/ethnic/urban plus South) (business & prof. [outside of South])
class based politics (outside of South)
New Deal vs. anti-New Deal
increased turnout
civil rights movement and cracks in the old “Solid [Democratic] South”
conflict between “new reformers” and “old bosses”
origins of mass media campaigns, etc.
American Party Systems (cont.)
Sixth Party System (1972-2000?)
Democrats
vs.
Republicans
(“liberals”)
(“conservatives”)
(pro-New Deal remnant)
(anti-New Deal remnant)
(great majority of non-whites)
(majority of whites)
largely non-sectional but low turnout
rise of social/cultural issues
rise of candidate-oriented Pres. nominating politics
migration of white Southerners from Dem ==> Rep
rise of candidate-centered politics and media campaigns
era of divided government (Rep. Presidents vs. Dem. House)
American Party Systems (cont.)
Seventh Party System (2000? - ???)
Democrats
vs.
Republicans
(“blue states”)
(“red states”)
coastal America
middle America
secular America
religious America
(great majority of non-whites)
(majority of whites)
increased turnout
solidification of “solid Republican South” (Cong. + Pres.)
strengthened party identification in electorate
greatly strengthen party unity in Congress
extremely close Presidential and Congressional elections
resumption of unified government?