Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T14:29:59.228Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reiter's ‘Limitations of Reform’: Right Track, Wrong Conclusion?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Gary D. Wekkin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is possible to agree with Professor Reiter's general argument and still fault some of his data and take exception to his conclusions. There is little doubt that the original sources of the state and local parties' weakness, and of their loss of control over the presidential nominating process, preceded the party and campaign reforms of the 1970s. Reiter is not alone in arguing that the eclipse of state and local ‘king-makers’ slowly began to take effect earlier, as a result of the advent of civil service reforms, presidential primaries, electronic media, new campaign techniques and the nationalization of the electorate. The reforms are indeed only the latest chapter of a long-running saga.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , October 1985 , pp. 420 - 423
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Truman, David B., ‘Party Reform, Party Atrophy, and Constitutional Change’, Political Science Quarterly, IC (1984–1985), 637–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Wekkin, Gary D., ‘Political Parties and Intergovernmental Relations in 1984’, Publius, XV (1985), forthcoming.Google Scholar

2 Reiter, , pp. 414–15.Google Scholar

3 Reiter, , p. 400.Google Scholar

4 Reiter, , p. 408.Google Scholar

5 Reiter, , p. 403.Google Scholar

6 See Wekkin, Gary D., ‘National-State Party Relations: The Democrats’ New Federal Structure’, Political Science Quarterly, IC (1984), 57–68Google Scholar; and Kamarck, Elaine, ‘What Next? A Look at Changes in the Presidential Nominating Process Passed by the Hunt Commission’, paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Southwestern Political Science Association, San Antonio, Texas, 1982.Google Scholar

7 Reiter, , p. 416.Google Scholar

8 Wekkin, , ‘Political Parties and Intergovernmental Relations’.Google Scholar

9 Wekkin, , ‘Political Parties and Intergovernmental Relations’.Google Scholar

10 Wekkin, Gary D., Democrat versus Democrat (Columbia, Mo.: University of Missouri Press, 1984), p. 169.Google Scholar