Lecture IV: Presidential Nominations and the Delegate Selection Process

4/22/12

Dr. Christopher Malone Click to edit Master subtitle style

I. Introduction

Presidential nominees are chosen by the delegates to their partys national convention. But delegates are in turn chosen by the states; the procedures for delegate selection are determined by state law. Today, these procedures must conform to guidelines established by the national parties. This was not always the case: as we 4/22/12 have seen, before the 1970s, state party

II. Democrat Rule Changes, 1968-present

A. McGovern-Frazier Commission: the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago was surrounded by chaos and conflict. Outside, anti-war protesters clashed with police; inside, democrats who sought to reform the nomination system clashed with entrenched political leaders. Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who was seen by anti-war 4/22/12 Democrats as the person most likely to

Nomination Reforms after 1968

Timely: The commission found that primaries or caucuses had to be held in timely fashion; as we will see below by 1976 the Democratic Party stipulated that primaries and caucuses should be held within a window of a period of months. 2. Open: In 1968, common practice was to have state party leaders chose 4/22/12 the delegates

Subsequent Commissions
Later commissions made more changes in Democratic rules. They have sought to address three general problems.
1.

The time frame of the process: After Jimmy Carter won the nomination in 1976, once again the Democratic party changed the nomination rules, setting what they called a window within which all primaries or caucuses have to take place from early March to early June. Smaller primaries at the beginning of the process had an inordinate amount of influence on the system. Why restrict the time period? One reason is to limit the length of campaigns, but another reason was to ensure the frontrunner (in 1980, Carter) an easier time, since momentum could not be gained by other candidates. Raising the threshold: Allowing candidates to seat delegates when they received only 15% of the vote in a state tended to stretch the nomination process out at the same time factionalize the party. Thus, the threshold level was raised to 25% in 1984. In 2008 it was set back to 15%. Power to the party officials: In the 1980s, the Democrats sought to bring party leaders and state elected officials into the fold by proposing add on delegates, sometimes called super delegates or PLEOs party leaders and elected officials (Senators, governors, etc.). These 4/22/12 super delegates are unpledged they are not committed to any candidate, though presidential

2.

3.

III. Republican Rules

Republicans have not imposed rules on the state nearly to the extent that Democrats have. They have not chosen to mandate national guidelines for the state parties. Four differences are worth pointing out:
4/22/12

IV. Impact of Rule Changes

The impact of some of these rule changes over the last three decades has been both positive and negative, with some anticipated as well as unintended consequences.
A.

Turnout: One of the stated goals of the rule changes has been to increase the participation of the party rank and file in the process. This has been somewhat successful. 4/22/12

Impact of Rule Changes (contd)

B. Representation: Democrats have been successful in getting a diverse group of delegates to their convention since the mid 1970s. Women comprise more than half of all the delegates at recent conventions, and one out of five delegates is black much higher than the black population in the overall electorate. Descriptively, the 4/22/12 Democrats have done much better than the

Impact of Rule Changes (contd)

C. Influence of Party Leaders: With the rise of the presidential preference primary, state party officials have become less important in the nomination process. The Democrats have sought to reverse this situation by adding super delegates or PLEOs to the convention. And still, candidates look for the endorsements of the highest elected officials of4/22/12state the

Impact of Rule Changes (contd)

D. More Independent and Dark Horse Candidates: With the rise of the primary, we have also seen candidates who claim to be members of the party but who have never held elective office attempt to capture the nomination. Steve Forbes, Jesse Jackson, even to an extent, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, Herman Cain these are candidates that are 4/22/12 not part of

IV. Strategies to Capturing the Nomination and Amassing there are a number Delegates In the primary system,
of elements to a successful strategy in order to capture the nomination. While candidates may devise different strategies in different parts of the country, some basic guidelines include the following:
4/22/12

Capturing the Nomination and A.Amassing Delegates Plan Far Ahead: The primary system

forces candidates to begin running for president years before the first primary ever takes place. Even though candidates do not declare their candidacy until a year to two years before the election, they have begun campaigning long before that date. B. Develop a Deep and Wide 4/22/12

Capturing the Nomination and D. Amassing Delegates Use Other Resources Wisely

Besides money, there are other resources at the disposal of the candidate. For example,
1. The office the candidate holds: Being president is probably the easiest way to get to the nomination. But the office which best positions a candidate for the nomination has 4/22/12

Capturing the Nomination and 2.Amassing Delegates The Media: Candidates must attract

attention early from the media any way they can. Free press is the best press; controversy is not necessarily a bad thing. In this cycle, weve had several Republicans who have received the frontrunner Romney, Trump, Bachmann, Perry Now that Christie has not gotten into the race, Herman Cain is receiving 4/22/12 a bunch of attention. But most importantly,

IV. Strategies to Capturing the Nomination and AmassingLeaders: Get endorsements Delegates E. Influential
from the party leaders quickly and en masse. This shows legitimacy; it also sends cues to voters who know little about the candidate: if my elected official endorses him/her, this person cant be all that bad. F. Use of Rules: There are many rules to the primary game threshold numbers, 4/22/12

V. Conclusion: The Goals and Reality of the Nominationprocess seeks to sustain a Process The nomination
democratic character. Sometimes it succeeds; other times it fails miserably. But gauging the nomination process against a set of criteria helps us to better see its strengths and weaknesses. Three tasks of the nomination process should be discussed.
4/22/12

and Reality of the Nomination Process forum for A. It should provide an important
democracy: 1. Voters choose nominees: Time and again we have come back to the changes in the nomination process after the turbulent years of the late 1960s. No longer do party leaders choose candidates; in this sense, the nomination process has moved in a more democratic 4/22/12 direction.

V. Conclusion: The Goals and Reality of the Nomination Process 3. Outside Ballots and Petitions:
Nomination for the presidency is open to persons outside the two-party system, though capturing the White House through this route is nearly impossible. Nonetheless, insurgent third party candidates and independent challengers are allowed on the ballot for president if they raise the requisite number of 4/22/12 signatures in each state. This year there has

V. Conclusion: The Goals and Reality of the NominationThe drawn out Process B. Informed Voters:
nomination process does have an upside: voters are potentially more informed since candidates must compete earlier and longer to get their message out, in the process refining it and sharpening it. 1. How much do they know? One of the enduring concerns in presidential4/22/12 politics is

V. Conclusion: The Goals and Reality of the Nomination Processthe C. Qualified Nominees: Finally,
nomination process is intended to produce at least 2 qualified nominees for the office of the presidency. But the question becomes: what determines qualified?
1. The Electorate speaks: voters look for many qualities in their president: character, morality, leadership, perseverance, health, experience. But 4/22/12 the question becomes: what are the demands of