Fall 1996
Click on hypertext to jump to the essay:
The front-loading of the calendar for the presidential primaries and caucuses this year is a reminder of the evolutionary nature of the presidential nominating process, subject not only to abrupt changes brought about by sweeping reforms like those of the McGovern-Fraser Commission. In examining the major changes in that process over the past century, it is difficult not to conclude that the changes generally point in the same direction -- to a nationwide primary on a single day. This is not to predict that the adoption of such a procedure is imminent, or even in the foreseeable future, although such adoption would not surprise the author. Rather, the inner logic of the development of our nominating process seems to imply the emergence of such a system. Indeed, it is remarkable to note how close we are to this procedure already, as the following tables illustrate -- the proportion of delegates selected in primaries is approaching 100 percent. This year, moreover, marks the shortest and most front-loaded process since the proliferation of primaries began in 1972.
| Year | Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1968 | 37.5 | 34.3 | |
| 1972 | 60.5 | 52.7 | |
| 1976 | 72.6 | 67.9 | |
| 1980 | 74.7 | 74.3 | |
| 1984 | 62.9 | 68.2 | |
| 1988 | 66.6 | 76.9 | |
| 1992 | 78.8 | 80.4 | |
| 1996 | 83.5 | 85.9 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Half | Two-thirds | Half | Two-thirds | 1972 | 77 | 91 | -- | -- |
| 1976 | 115 | 130 | 123 | 130 | ||
| 1980 | 106 | 134 | 106 | 127 | ||
| 1984 | 50 | 78 | -- | -- | ||
| 1988 | 58 | 72 | 72 | 86 | ||
| 1992 | 57 | 78 | 78 | 106 | ||
| 1996 | -- | -- | 42 | 67 | ||
Over the long run, these trends are not simply a question of party leaders losing their power to the party masses. In this regard, it is helpful to recall that exactly one hundred years ago, the Democrats experienced the takeover of their organization in most states by the forces of free silver, in a coup that foreshadowed the Barry Goldwater (1964) and George McGovern (1972) nominations many decades later. On the Republican side, William McKinley won nomination over the opposition of such powerful eastern leaders as William E. Chandler, Thomas C. Platt, Matthew Quay and Thomas B. Reed, with the slogan "the people against the bosses," which presaged the uneasy relationship between later party leaders and such nominees as Wendell Willkie, John F. Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. Such examples should caution us against stereotyping the past as a period when party leaders exercised total control over nominations.
Instead, we can enumerate two characteristics of a nationwide primary, and see how all the significant changes in the nominating process during the twentieth century have moved closer to them: (1) plebiscitarianism (one partisan, one vote), and (2) nationalization (national control and/or coordination).
To explore the reasons for these trends would take us rather far afield, but suffice it to note that they are consistent with a variety of institutional changes across the American political system in the twentieth century, from legislative reapportionment to the increase in the power of the federal government. As necessarily highly visible institutions, parties might be considered to be especially prone to such forces.
At the outset of the century, states were essentially autonomous in determining their procedures for selecting national convention delegates, and those delegates were apportioned according to the states' electoral votes. In the light of the general argument here, it is significant that the advent of the first presidential primaries in 1904 almost coincided with the adoption of bonus votes by the Republicans after their disastrous 1912 convention. Both reforms were a move in the direction of nominations being decided on a plebiscitary basis. While the efficacy of the primaries of this period is problematic, they were at least symbolic of involvement of partisans as individuals rather than as members of state parties. Bonus votes were a more substantive step in the direction of representing individuals rather than states at national conventions.
Not only was the adoption of bonus votes a move toward plebiscitarianism, but in a real sense it was a gesture toward nationalization as well. In the 39th Federalist, James Madison characterized the House of Representatives as a national institution, the Senate as federal; proportional representation of populations in the House made each citizen part of a nation, while equal representation of states in the Senate made the states intermediaries between the people and the federal government. Much the same can be said regarding the difference between apportionment based partially on bonus votes, and that solely utilizing electoral votes.
The chief reform of the next several decades was the Democrates' abolition of the two-thirds rule in 1936. This had an immediate and permanent effect: four of the five immediately preceding conventions that did not renominate an incumbent lasted for more than one ballot; only one Democratic convention since then (that of 1952) has done so. It also was, of course, a giant step in the direction of plebiscitatianism, particularly in those states with primaries. In the debate in the convention's rules committee, U.S. Representative E.E. Cox of Georgia accused proponents of majority rule of promulgating "a march upon the smaller states to break down and utterly destroy their influence in the councils of the party," and warned that they would soon demand that states be represented proportionally in the U.S. Senate.
For the Democrats, abolition of the two-thirds rule was followed soon by the establishment of bonus votes, seen as a sop to the south for acceding to the loss of the two-thirds rule -- as with the Republicans, a plebiscitarian as well as a nationalizing development.
Starting with the loyalty oath controversies of the 1950s, and continuing with the battles over racial discrimination in the 1960s, the Democrats began to assert national standards over states' delegations. During this period, the advent of television brought far-reaching changes to the political process. The sense that it brought to the delegates that "the whole world is watching" may have had a subtle influence on convention managers not to do anything that smacked unfair treatment of delegates; hence the Eisenhower campaign's use of "fair play" rhetoric in the first convention to be widely televised (1952), and the impetus for reform after the Democratic convention of 1968. (In an earlier era, the fact that a radio audience could enjoy every embarrassing moment of the Democrats' 103-ballot 1924 convention -- "Alabama casts 24 votes for Oscar W. Underwood" and nauseam -- may have helped doom the party's two-thirds rule.)
Of course, the most comprehensive set of changes in the rules was that of the McGovern-Fraser and O'Hara commissions that perhaps best remembered for two unintended consequences, the dramatic increase in the use of primaries, and the bringing along of the Republicans in the wake of these reforms, both trends illustrated in Table 1. In the context of the argument presented here, the reforms are noteworthy because they advanced the trends of plebiscitarianism and nationalization. If we group the reforms into the categories of procedural fairness (no proxy votes, publication of the rules in advance, etc.), affirmative action, and proportional representation of candidates' supporters, we can see that all were intended to allow each Democrat's voice to carry equal weight in the deliberations of the presidential contest. For the 1972 convention, this attempt to ensure that nobody be unfairly advantaged produced the randomization of the order of states on the roll call votes; no more would Alabamians enjoy the benefit of voting first, nor would the Democrats of Wyoming be able to see how the balloting was going before declaring themselves!
Beyond this major movement toward plebiscitarianism, the reforms gave the national party unprecedented powers to decide the legitimacy of state party rules, most spectacularly illustrated by the expulsion of Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley from the 1972 convention. In the same period, the reinvigoration of the Republican National Committee under the leadership of Chairman Bill Brock pushed that party in a more gingerly fashion in the direction of nationalization; surely the House Republican candidates' emphasis on the Contract with America in 1994 was an attempt to nationalize the party's appeal in an off-year.
Since 1972, we have seen a growth in the number of primaries and a shortening of the process, as the two tables above show. The latter trend is in large part fueled by resentment over the favored status of the participants in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, as states leapfrog over each other to be early participants. No doubt the plebiscitary urge is especially important here -- Why should the voters of two small states have so much clout? The logical extension of this is to have all states vote on the same day, or at least to let Iowa and New Hampshire have their moment in the sun, and then let everyone else vote a week after New Hampshire. In the past twenty years, the Republicans have cut by two-thirds the time in which a majority of delegates are chosen.
This essay has not approached the question of whether a single-day, national primary would be an improvement over the current system. Suffice it to note that it would likely favor prominent early front-runners (Dole), candidates with appeal to party constituencies nationally distributed (Buchanan), and those with ample campaign chests (Forbes). It would likely eliminate from consideration the Eugene McCarthys and Gary Harts, lesser-known candidates who could parlay an early respectable showing into a formidable campaign by gradually building popular and financial support. Whether the republic would benefit or not, this is the system toward which we are inexorably moving. Bibliography
Others:
Thank you for including me on the history of politics list. I've just read Howard Reiter's essay, which shows his usual imagination and scholarly command. I think he's right in most respects, and the twin concepts of plebiscitarianism and nationalization are very appropriate.
I would suggest some relatively small qualifications. I think we're more likely to move toward semi-national primaries, rather than a single-day primary. The process now looks to me like an NCAA basketball tournament (interestingly, occurring at the same time as the primaries), rather than a single-shot event. There are early eliminations of some minor teams, or candidates, leading up to the contest of the big teams. Especially with the shortening of the schedule, and frontloading, we've had this year an early selection of the conservative candidate (Buchanan over Gramm), the elimination of the liberal (Spector), and the consolidation of the moderates (Dole rather than Wilson or Powell), (I use "moderate" and"conservative" only in the loosest sense.) Now we're in the "final 4" with the likely final choice of Dole (today is Tuesday, March 5, and caution should lead me to wait until tonight to be a pundit.)
We also have virtually established a schedule of regional primaries, advocated by some in the past. Today is the Northeast, next week the South, then the Midwest, and finally the West (i.e. California, the big tamale.) The fit of states is not perfect (Georgia today, not next week, etc.), but that provides a certain regional variation that is useful in gauging broader appeal. Because the longer, if abbreviated, schedule is still useful as a means of increasing voter information over time, and serves candidate interests - and state pride - I think we're more likely to stay with this pattern than a single day primary.
Who will benefit? Howard is quite right - front-runners, ideological spokesmen, independently wealthy candidates. The lesser-known and lesser-finaced will be hurt. I'm not really too upset, except for the influence of the independently wealthy. I think it serves the parties, and even more the nation, to have candidates who have long records of national public service, and the prominence to win early support and money. To be specifically personal, I think we're better off nominating Doles and not Alexanders. But money is a problem, which will probably require (and Dole will support) revision of the finance law to offset independent wealth.
Anyway, some ideas for discussion. Best regards.
Gerry Pomper.
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 11:01:09 -0600
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 20:58:28 -0800 (PST)
From: David Lauter [David.Lauter@latimes.com]
Howard Reiter makes several quite interesting points. I would simply note the existence of some counter-trends.
The extreme degree of compression of this year's primary season has brought widespread complaints from party officials in many states. The main, and quite valid, complaint is that the chief result of the new schedule is to virtually eliminate any opportunity for candidates actually to campaign anywhere except Iowa and New Hampshire for any significant amount of time. Consider, for example, that Bob Dole, spent only two days campaigning in Georgia prior to his victory there this past Tuesday. He visited Texas today (Wednesday) for the first time this year and is likely to make only one other brief stop in the state before next Tuesday's vote. And the campaign in New York, which votes tomorrow, has consisted of two brief visits by Dole, a two-day fly-around by Steve Forbes and one brief stop by Pat Buchanan in Buffalo.
The result is that candidates have virtually no chance to gain any direct knowledge of the particular problems or issues of parts of the country with which they are not already familiar. Voters outside of Iowa and New Hampshire, moreover, have almost no opportunity to see or hear the candidates in any substantive manner.
The complaints about the system have reached a sufficient volume that at the most recent Republican National Committee meeting (in San Diego last month), party chairman Haley Barbour announced plans to establish a new party commission to review the primary system and suggest changes in it. Barbour's move is interesting in part because it marks the first time in recent years that the GOP, not the Democrats, may take the lead in changing the party system.
So while Reiter is correct that the logical endpoint of current trends would be a single national primary, we may be witnessing the first stages of a backlash that would alter the trend. One possible outcome might be for the parties to mandate a true series of regional primaries spread across the spring in a way that would provide time for some amount of actual campaigning. To make that work, the system would probably have to include an automatic rotation so that no one region would forever be at the end of the process.
I would note that the Supreme Court in a couple of decisions in recent years on state primary laws has made pretty clear that the parties have extensive authority to set rules governing primaries with which the states cannot interfere. I apologize for not appending a bibliography, but hope these comments are useful.
*****************************************************************************
DAVID LAUTER
Political Editor
Los Angeles Times
Times Mirror Sq./Los Angeles 90053
Lauter@news.latimes.com
Howard Reiter Responds:
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 96 13:53:33 EST
From: Howard Reiter [REITER@UConnVM.UConn.Edu]
I want to thank Gerry Pomper, David Lauter, and Jack Reynolds for their thoughtful comments on my mini-essay. Those comments deserve a response.
Pomper and Lauter both seem to be suggesting that a series of regional primaries is likely to be in the offing, and note correctly that we are more or less there now. I would suggest that this is an unstable phase in the evolution, because sooner or later states are going to realize that it's all over before most states are voting, as it is this year when Super Tuesday becomes Superfluous Tuesday, and the Rust Belt states of the midwest as well as California are rendered irrelevant despite having their primaries relatively early. This will lead to a race to the start.
Lauter's intriguing idea of a rotating calendar would require far more coordination (and perhaps nationalization!) than we have hitherto seen, and it would also necessitate that each region be willing to settle for irrelevancy a majority of the time; only once in, say, twenty years would it get to go first.
On Jack Reynolds's more normative concerns, I agree that it would be a shame to freeze out the appealing candidates of limited initial strength -- Gene McCarthy, Gary Hart, Lamar Alexander, even God help us Ronald Reagan in 1976 -- who could build up momentum through the primary season when it took longer.
Lauter's information that the GOP is setting up its own McGovern Commission (which reminds me of the old Whitney Darrow cartoon of an astronaut landing on a planet just in time to see the serpent offering an apple to Eve, and shouting, "Stop, Miss!") is interesting. Since that party has in this century taken a more laissez faire approach to the nominating process, it will be interesting to see what, if anything, results.
Thanks again to all, and to future respondents.