
James Caesar “Our presidential
selection process is unworthy of a
banana republic”
Methods of Presidential
Candidate Selection
Caucus System (1789 -1830’s)
 Party Convention (since 1830’s)
 Primary Elections (1972-1996)
 Frontloading of Primaries

Who does front-loading favor?
 Implications for 2008

1860 GOP National
Convention
Critique of Party Convention
Presidential Primary System

NH first-in-thenation presidential
primary state
Mixed Convention- Primary
JFK campaigning in West Virginia
http://www.youtube.com/
Primary Elections
George Pataki Oct 2, 2006
Evan Bayh, Sep 24, 2006
Mark Huckabee, Aug 11,
2006
Feingold, Sep 30, 2005
Chuck Hagel, May 4, 2005
NH Total Visits 2004-2005
Dems 14 visits, 21 days (Edwards 4
and 7; Kerry 3 and 3)
 GOP 36 visits, 49 days (Romney 7
and 7; Frist 4 and 6, Pataki 5 and 6)

Front-Loading
January 3 - February 4
Source: CNN Elections Center 2008
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/path.presidency/
Super Tuesday
February
March- McCain Clinches
April
May - July
Different Parties, Different
Rules
GOP – winner make no changes
 Dems -> losers tweak the system

1968  Elite smoke filled
rooms
1980 Carter can’t govern
Superdelegaates
Post 1984 Too liberal
nominees

AL, AR, GA, TN = Super Tuesday
Post 1988

Replace winner take all
with proportional
representation
1996 & 2000  Elect Clinton/Gore
And the result is…..

ProcedurallyMost votes?
 Winner of OH, PA, CA,
 FL and MI don’t count!


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/216609
14
Weakens Gatekeeper Role for Party
Implications of Primaries






Weakens gatekeeper role for parties
(Buchanan, Forbes, Jerry Brown, Jesse
Jackson)
Gives power to ideological activists
Different type of candidate running (McCain)
Diminish electability (Gays in military,
Private school in SC)
Hurt governability (read my lips)
Popular mandate from people, not Party

New Democrat, compassionate conservative






1968 -Increase democratic nature =
McGovern ultra liberal
1980 Carter can’t work with party =
Superdelegates
Post 1984- party is nominating liberals =
Super Tuesday- Southern primary
Post 1988 – Jesse Jackson- proportional
representation
Post 2000- Frontloading
Democratic slates- 50% male/female
Source: http://politicalmaps.org
Source: Real Clear Politics
Alternatives?


No federal authority
Race to the bottom
Comparative Perspective
The Electoral College
State electors = districts + 2 (House + Senate)
“Winner take all” in all but 2 states
270 of 538 electors needed to win,
otherwise thrown to the House
As the Candidates See It
Consequences of Electoral
College
• Big states matter most
• 50 separate campaigns
• Victories and losses exaggerated
• Minor parties discouraged
• Candidate with most votes can lose
• Not direct democracy
1996 Example:
Clinton/Gore 50%
Dole/Kemp 41%
Perot/Choate 9%
379 (70%)
159 (30%)
0
National Elections

Electoral College




Election strategy
Partisan Lock
Disenfranchisement
False mandates
• Clinton in 1992 43% of vote, 68.8% of EC

Chance of a Misfire?
97.6%
96.4%
90.8%
87.3%
83.6%
90.3%
84.9%
80.5%
79.1%
76.4%
75.1%
9.7%
55.9%
52.9%
58.8%
55.3%
50.6%50.7%
50.1%
53.4%
43.4%
67.7%
53.5%52.4%
50.4%
49.3% 48.1%
Winner % of Popular Vote
Winner % of District System
Average
2000 R
1996 D
1984 R
1980 R
43.0%
1976 D
1964 D
1960 D
1956 R
1952 R
49.7%
45.5%
61.0%
68.8% 68.4%
64.4%
60.0%
1992 D
61.1%
56.3%
1972 R
57.4%
1968 R
1%
69.2%
1988 R
82.2%
86.4%
Winner % of Unit System
1968
1972
1976
1980
1988
1992
1996
2000 Battleground States
Electoral College v. Direct
Election
How does it shape campaigns?
 Does it encourage fraud?
 Does it produce a winner?
 Does it represent people’s wishes?
 Does it help presidents govern?

Presidential Elections
Long
 Expensive
 Discourages good candidates?
 Potential source of Power?
 Predictions for 2008
