No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Limitations of Reform: Changes in the Nominating Process
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 January 2009
Extract
For more than a decade, a debate has been raging among American political activists, journalists and scholars about the numerous rules changes enacted by the Democratic party since its tumultuous 1968 national convention, and the various legal changes at the state and federal levels that have also affected the Presidential nominating process. The rules changes have included the introduction of fairer practices such as written state party rules for delegate selection; proportional representation of candidates' supporters in the delegations; increased representation of women, racial minorities and young people at the convention; and measures to require nominees to respond in writing to the party platform. The legal changes include the proliferation of delegate selection primaries and the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and its various subsequent amendments. The debate has centred around the desirability of these changes, which will here be referred to generically as ‘the reforms’, with no normative connotation intended.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985
References
1 On Democratic rules changes, see Crotty, William, Party Reform (New York: Longman, 1983)Google Scholar. On financial rules changes, see Malbin, Michael, ed., Parties, Interest Groups, and Campaign Finance Laws (Washington: American Enterprise Institute, 1980)Google Scholar, and Drew, Elizabeth, Politics and Money (Washington: Macmillan. 1983).Google Scholar
2 Ranney, Austin, ‘The Democratic Party's Delegate Selection Reforms, 1968–76’, in Sindler, Allan P., ed., America in the Seventies (Boston: Little, Brown, 1977), p. 163.Google Scholar
3 Kirkpatrick, Jeane Jordan, Dismantling the Parties (Washington: American Enterprise Institute, 1978), p. 2Google Scholar; and Polsby, Nelson W., Consequences of Party Reform (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983).Google Scholar
4 Shafer, Byron E., Quiet Revolution (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1983), p. 525.Google Scholar
5 Kemble, Penn and Muravchik, Josh, ‘The New Politics and the Democrats’, Commentary, 12 1972, p. 78.Google Scholar
6 Crotty, William J., Decision for the Democrats (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), pp. 254–5.Google Scholar
7 Ranney is quoted in ‘Primaries '80: Once Again the System Worked, Sort Of’, The New York Times, 8 06 1980, sec. 4, p. E5Google Scholar; Crotty's comment is in Crotty, William J., Political Reform and the American Experiment (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1977). pp. 272–3.Google Scholar
8 On party decline in general, see Burnham, Walter Dean, Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics (New York: W. W. Norton, 1970)Google Scholar; Crotty, William J. and Jacobson, Gary C., American Parties in Decline (Boston: Little, Brown, 1980)Google Scholar; and Wattenberg, Martin P., The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952–1980 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984).Google Scholar
9 This discussion owes much to Polsby, Nelson W., ‘Decision-Making at the National Conventions’, Western Political Quarterly, XIII (1960), 609–19.Google Scholar
10 Quoted in May, Ernest R. and Fraser, Janet, eds., Campaign '72: The Managers Speak (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), pp. 106–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Quoted in David, Paul T. and Ceaser, James W., Proportional Representation in Presidential Nominating Politics (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1980), p. III.Google Scholar
12 Polsby, , Consequences of Party Reform, p. 71.Google Scholar
13 Sullivan, Denis G., Pressman, Jeffrey L. and Arterton, F. Christopher, Explorations in Convention Decision Making (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1976), pp. 19–20.Google Scholar
14 There is one slight exception to this rule, the 1912 Republican national convention. William H. Taft was the only candidate to exceed 10 per cent, but he received only 51·6 per cent. Theodore Roosevelt ran second, garnering 9·9 per cent, and nearly a third of the delegates abstained. The vote of even one of the 348 abstainers would have given Roosevelt more than 10 per cent, so this is designated a contested convention.
15 See the Commission's report, Call to Order …, published by the Democratic National Committee, p. 56.Google Scholar
16 Frankel, Max, ‘Ho Hum, Another Last Hurrah’, The New York Times Magazine, 11 07 1976, p. 10.Google Scholar
17 Quoted in Clymer, Adam, ‘Gauging the Delegate Count as the Nominations Approach’, The New York Times, 17 05 1980, p. 10Google Scholar. This development makes ludicrous Tom Wicker's lament that if the Carter forces won their rules fight with the Kennedy supporters in 1980, ‘a delegate would become not a real representative of those who elected him, acting on their behalf and accepting the responsibility for his or her actions, but an automatic vote cast in a predetermined manner’ – as if delegates had been anything but that for decades. See Wicker, , ‘What Is a Delegate?’ The New York Times, 11 07 1980, p. A25.Google Scholar
18 Polsby, , Consequence of Party Reform, p. 77.Google Scholar
19 Gilligan is quoted in David, and Ceaser, , Proportional Representation, p. 10Google Scholar. See also Keech, William R. and Matthews, Donald R., The Party's Choice (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1976), p. 234Google Scholar; Kirkpatrick, Jeane, The New Presidential Elite (New York: Russell Sage Foundation and the Twentieth Century Fund, 1976), p. 365Google Scholar; Parris, Judith H., The Convention Problem (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1972), pp. 84–5Google Scholar; and Polsby, Nelson W. and Wildavsky, Aaron, Presidential Elections. 5th edn (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1980), pp. 230–1.Google Scholar
20 Later in this article, the hypothesis that more candidates are receiving votes than ever before will be tested.
21 David, and Ceaser, , Proportional Representation, p. 111.Google Scholar
22 They include Keech, and Matthews, , Party's Choice, p. 87Google Scholar; Kirkpatrick, , Dismantling the Parties, p. 23Google Scholar; Polsby, and Wildavsky, , Presidential Elections, p. 150Google Scholar; Pomper, Gerald M. et al. , The Election of 1976 (New York: David McKay, 1977), pp. 3–4Google Scholar; and Ranney, , ‘The Democratic Party's Delegate Selection Reforms’, p. 195.Google Scholar
23 The 1980 Republican nomination, which by the present definition was uncontested and hence does not appear in the table, drew five candidates who each received at least 10 per cent of the vote in one primary.
24 See Asher, Herbert B., Presidential Elections and American Politics, rev. edn (Homewood, Ill.: The Dorsey Press, 1980), p. 285Google Scholar; Kessel, John, Presidential Campaign Politics (Homewood, Ill.: The Dorsey Press, 1980), pp. 251–3Google Scholar; Polsby, , Consequences, pp. 59–62Google Scholar; Polsby, and Wildavsky, , Presidential Elections, pp. 81, 84Google Scholar; and the remarks of Jessica Tuchman of Morris Udall's 1976 staff in Moore, Jonathan and Fraser, Janet, eds., Campaign for President (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1977), p. 152.Google Scholar
25 Bode, Kenneth A. and Casey, Carol F., ‘Party Reform: Revisionism Revisited’, in Goldwin, Robert A., ed., Political Parties in the Eighties (Washington, D.C. and Gambier, Ohio: American Enterprise Institute and Kenyon College, 1980), p. 18.Google Scholar
26 Polsby, and Wildavsky, , Presidential Elections, p. 115.Google Scholar
27 Polsby, and Wildavsky, , Presidential Elections, pp. 80–1Google Scholar. See also Fraser, Donald M., ‘Democratizing the Democratic Party’Google Scholar, in Goldwin, , ed., Parties in the Eighties, p. 125.Google Scholar
28 Arterton, F. Christopher, ‘Recent Rules Changes Within the National Democratic Party’, paper presented to the annual meeting of the Social Science History Association, Columbus, Ohio, 1978, p. 22.Google Scholar
29 Bain, Richard C., Convention Decisions and Voting Records (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1960).Google Scholar
30 See, for example. Ranney, Austin, ‘Changing the Rules of the Nominating Game’, in Barber, James David, ed., Choosing the President (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1974), pp. 73–4.Google Scholar
31 A comprehensive treatment of the subject is Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel, The Concept of Representation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967).Google Scholar
32 Bode v. National Democratic Party, 452 F.2d 1302 (D.C. Cir. 1971)Google Scholar; Georgia v. National Democratic Party, 447 F.2d 1271, 1275 (D.C. Cir. 1971)Google Scholar; Ripon Society, Inc. v. National Republican Party, 525 F.2d 548, 567 (D.C. Cir. 1975)Google Scholar; Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. I (1976)Google Scholar; O'Brien v. Brown, 409 U.S. I (1972)Google Scholar; Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477 (1975)Google Scholar; National Democratic Party v. LaFollette, 450 U.S. 107 (1981)Google Scholar; and Columbia Broadcasting System v. Federal Communications Commission, 453 U.S. 367 (1981).Google Scholar
33 Buckley, William F. Jr., ‘His Unbiased Analysis’, Norwich Bulletin (Connecticut), 7 08 1980, p. 6.Google Scholar
34 Data graciously provided by Carey Funk of CBS News.
35 McGovern, George, ‘The Democrats Change the Rules’, The Nation, 15 05 1982, pp. 580–2.Google Scholar