1. THE EVOLUTION OF THE AMERICAN PARTY SYSTEM AND THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING PROCESS

2. The American “Party Systems”
Historical party systems separated by realigning elections or periods:
Framers' Non-Partisan System ( )
First Party System ( )
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 ( )
collapse of Federalist Party
collapse of Congressional Caucus

3. American Party Systems (cont.)
Second Party System ( )
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 ( )
Democrats vs. Republicans (N. Whigs + Free Soil)
(pro-South) (North)

4. American Party Systems (cont.)
Third Party System ( )
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

5. American Party Systems (cont.)
Fourth Party System ( )
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

6. American Party Systems (cont.)
Fifth (New Deal) Party System ( )
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.

7. American Party Systems (cont.)
Sixth Party System ( ?)
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)

8. 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
dominance of social/cultural issues
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?

9. 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 had a primary election.

10. 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 Democratic-Republican party].
E.E. Schattschneider, Party Government, 1942

11. Clones, Spoilers, and Nominations (cont.)
The opposition to the incumbent candidate or party needs to
coordinate its efforts and votes on a single candidate, and
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 viewed
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 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

12. 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."

13. 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. Model
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

14. The Nominating Convention (cont.)
Basic structure and rules (cont.):
voting rules
within delegations
split votes
"unit rule"
on convention floor
procedural issues
simple majority rule
nominations
Democratic 2/3 rule ( )
otherwise absolute majority
repeated ballots
no elimination

15. 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 ( )
The Mixed System ( )
The Candidate-Dominant System (1972-present)
James W. Ceaser, Presidential Selection: Theory and Development, 1979

16. 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:
Convert 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.

17. The Party-Dominant System (cont.)
Convention decision making
consensus nominations
renominating an elected incumbent
factional fights
multi-ballot conventions
front-runner strategy
"stalking horse" stratagem
"dark horse" candidacies
"smoke filled rooms"
the Vice Presidential nomination
as a bargaining resource or
for ticket balancing
Consequence: mediocre nominees (and Presidents)?
James Bryce, "Why Great Men are Not Chosen President," from THE AMERICAN COMMONWEALTH (1888)

18. 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)
Open primary: no voter registration by party, voters chose on primary election day which party primary to vote in
Closed: voter registration by party, only party registrants can vote in party primary

19. Presidential Primaries
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
Delegate binding primaries
“Beauty contest" primaries

20. Constraints on President Primaries
Party organizational objections to [Presidential] primaries:
party leaders lose control of nominations;
they are divisive and disruptive, promoting party factionalism;
they waste resources that should be conserved the general election.
Party organizational control or negation of primaries ( s):
outright repeal
separated from delegate selection
unpledged delegates
run "favorite son" candidates

21. The First Revolution in Presidential Nominations
Party-dominance compromised by the opportunities that prospective Presidential candidates gained to bypass established party leaders/”bosses.”
Presidential primaries
mass media
polls
mobilization of "amateur" party activists
mobilization of professional political consultants, etc.
This created the Mixed System of Presidential nominations.

22. Mixed System of Presidential Nominations
Strategic implications:
Prospective candidates openly “throw their hats in the ringing.”
They way overt campaigns to influence delegate selection and votes.
They can demonstrating electoral prowess by entering Presidential primaries.
“Insider" vs. “Outsider" strategies:
Insider: seek nomination in manner of party-dominant system (LBJ in 1960)
Denounce presidential primaries as “hogwash”
Outsider: use new opportunities to bypass party leaders (JFK in 1960) by entering primaries (or threatening to do so)
Outsider must assemble personal campaign organization
and raise a lot of money.
Outside face tactical considerations in deciding which primaries to enter.
At the conventions:
Multi-ballot conventions still quite likely
Bargaining is now between candidate organizations, rather than state party leaders
Try to develop “bandwagon effect”
FRBC / FKBLA

23. Mixed System (cont.)
Consequence -- better candidates (and Presidents)?
weaker party loyalties put more emphasis on candidate qualities
nominee usually exhibits combination of
demonstrated electoral appeal
professional peer review
selection method tests for Presidential qualities
macro/electoral skills
micro/bargaining skills
Advantages of mixed system over single national primary?
Candidates can gain incremental strength and resources
May produce a sequence of (more or less) straight fights
Allows a "sober second look" at convention time.

24. The Second Revolution in Presidential Nominations
Historical state party sovereignty in delegate selection
credential fights: proxy candidate contests
1948 "Dixiecrat" walkout
1952 Democratic "loyalty" requirement
1964 Mississippi "Freedom Democratic" delegation
compromise and rules change
1968 Democratic convention
mandate for “party reform”

25. Post-1968 Democratic Party Reforms
The development national party rules: McGovern Commission
banned/discouraged
closed/untimely party caucuses
delegate-primaries
endorsed
open caucuses (for pledged delegates)
candidate-oriented primaries
encouraged/required proportional representation of
candidate preferences
selected demographic groups
blacks and minorities
women
young people

26. Democratic Party Reforms (cont.)
Actual consequence: proliferation of candidate-oriented Presidential primaries, which
required changes in state laws, and
applied to Republicans as well as Democrats.
Democratic Rules have been tweaked periodically,
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.

27. 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,
assemble a personal campaign organization, and
raise a lot of money
Nominating contest becomes a "marathon"
candidates must contest delegates almost everywhere,
often by mobilizing factions (vs. building coalitions).

28. 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
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?
An open multi-ballot convention would be very different from those under the earlier systems.

29. Candidate-Dominant System (cont.)
Consequences for candidate selection
candidate entry and deterrence
office base
Consequences for party competition
Democratic dispersion
Republican cohesion
Consequences for governing
testing for governing experience and skills
electoral disaggregation
disconnection of Presidential from Congressional wings of each party

30. 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?
House election [“19 times out of 20”] Jan. 6
Electoral votes [two-party system] Dec. 15
Selection of electors [pledged electors] Nov. 5
Who will be the party nominees?
Conventions [party-dominant system] July-Aug.
Later primaries [mixed system] Late spring
Early primaries [candidate-dominant system] Winter*
* except Dems 2008 (and Reps 1976)