Chapter 4. Party Rules for Nominations
THEME: Rules are Never Neutral
Who determines
procedures for selecting delegates?
-
states through laws
-
national parties through rule
-
complexity a produce of federalism
What group was favored by
delegate selection rules 50 years ago?
•
State party leaders
•
primaries were advisory
•
delegates chosen in caucuses, conventions, that leaders could control
•
used winner-take-all rules and unit votes
Why role did
primaries play in the 1968 Democratic nomination campaign?
•
means to protest the Vietnam War
•
VP Humphrey stayed out -- won old way
•
McCarthy challenged LBJ
•
RF Kennedy shot
What mayor in
what city in what year created chaos that led to delegate selection reforms?
•
Richard Daley
•
Chicago, 1968
What were the
goals of the post 1968 Democratic reforms?
•
Convention reflect party member opinions--choose delegates proportional
to vote
•
close primaries to non-Democrats (no "open" primaries) -- prevent
"crossover" voting
•
better represent previously underrepresented groups: minorities, women,
and youth
•
increase participation--move to primaries
What were the
unintended consequences?
•
Longer campaigns, more primaries -- states “frontloading”
•
raise cost
•
wear candidates out
•
bore public
•
divide and weaken parties--unhappy losers, elected officials and leaders
got left out
•
make winning/governing harder--"candidate-centered" campaigns
What reforms did
Democrrats try after 1980 to address some of these problems?
-
create windows to spread out
primaries
-
get party
leaders and elected officials back into the process
-
set 15%
threshold
-
dropped quotas for minorities
and youth (kept 50% female)
What is the
“threshold” in a primary and why is it important?
•
Minimum % vote required to get delegates -- eventually set at 15% by
Democrats
•
high thresholds favor frontrunners -- low allows “darkhorses” to stay in
race longer
What did the
Democrats try to do to stop “frontloading” and shorten the primary campaign?
-
Create a 3 month “window” from March to June
-
challenged by NH and Iowa -- allowed exemptions
-
did not solve problem -- states still frontload, though can
be punished (Mich and Fla in 2008)
What are PLEO’s
or “superdelegates” and why are they significant?
•
Party Leaders and Elected Officials (about 18% of delegates)
•
ensure convention participation of party leaders -- could choose if
primaries fail
•
create more support for candidate among powerful people in party -- help
win
•
better able to govern after winning
Are Democratic
delegates required to vote for primary winners?
•
No, may vote conscience (old rule required that they vote for winner)
•
must take a pledge
•
may be released by candidate -- the usual practice today
Why have
Democratic rules affected Republican delegate selection procedures?
•
State law changes by Democratic controlled legislatures forced primaries
on Republicans
•
Culture change: Republicans copied some reforms to not look backward and
look more inclusive
•
Republican changes more modest
Who wins when
national party rules conflict with state laws?
•
National party rules
•
Several Supreme Court cases -- national parties protected under 1st
amendment under rights of free association -- states cannot dictate how
delegates chosen
How do parties decide how many
delegates each state has?
•
use formula based on state size and party vote in previous election
•
challenged in court but party rules again win because of "free
association"
•
Republicans give same bonus for going Republican regardless of state size
Factors
that affect the amount of popular participation in the delegate selection
process each election year?
•
Primaries or caucuses
•
closeness of races
•
placement toward beginning
How
are convention delegates different than primary voters?
•
Higher SES
•
More extreme ideologically
What impact have these reforms
had? An overall--evaluation
-
higher turnout, but that seems
more related to competitive primaries -- see data for 2008 (handout)
-
creates candidate centered
campaigns--Washington outsiders have a better chance of winning -- both make
governing more difficult
-
longer campaigns
-
more expensive campaigns
-
creates incentives to
overpromise--leads to disappointment