Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:34:15.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Meaningful Participation and the Evolution of the Reformed Presidential Nominating System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2009

Lonna Rae Atkeson  and
Cherie D. Maestas
Lonna Rae Atkeson
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
Cherie D. Maestas
Affiliation:
Florida State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Forty years ago, violent protests at the Democratic National Convention captured the attention of the nation as rioters vented their anger over a nomination process they felt excluded their voices. The disastrous 1968 convention spawned a cascade of reforms in the presidential nomination system, many of which were intended to create greater opportunity for meaningful participation of the party's rank-and-file members. Forty years later, where do we stand? Does the nomination process meet the goals of encouraging broad participation and connecting rank-and-file preferences to nomination outcomes? We offer some tentative answers to these questions by tracing the history of the nomination process, its evolution over the last 40 years, and the implications of several key changes in the system for citizen participation.

Type
Symposium
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 59 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2009

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

Atkeson, Lonna Rae, and Maestas, Cherie D.. 2008. “Racing to the Front: The Influence of Frontloading on Turnout.” Paper presented at the 2008 Reforming the Presidential Nomination Process Conference, University of Iowa, January 4.Google Scholar
Atkeson, Lonna Rae. 1993. “Moving Toward Unity: Attitudes in the Nomination and General Election Stages of the Presidential Campaign.” American Politics Quarterly 21: 272–89.Google Scholar
Atkeson, Lonna Rae. 1998. “Divisive Primaries and General Election Outcomes: Another Look at Presidential Campaigns.” American Journal of Political Science 42: 256–71.Google Scholar
Atkeson, Lonna Rae. 2009. “Voter Decision-Making on the Heels of Iowa.” In The Western Presidential Primary, ed. Patton, David and Robinson, Jennifer L.. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1988. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broder, David S. 1996, “After Quick Decision, GOP Reviewing Primary Schedule,” Washington Post, April 19, A8.Google Scholar
Commission on Party Structure, and Delegate Selection. 1970. Mandate for Reform. Washington D.C.: Democratic National Committee.Google Scholar
Cook, Rhodes, and Kaplan, Dave. 1988. “In 1988, Caucuses Have Been the Place for Political Passion.” Congressional Quarterly 46: 1523–24.Google Scholar
Donovan, Todd, and Tolbert, Caroline J.. 2007. “State Context and Voter Mobilization: Who is Mobilized by What?” Paper presented at the State Politics and Policy Meetings, Austin, TX, February 23–24.Google Scholar
Flowers, Julianne F., Haynes, Audrey, and Crespin, Michael. 2003. “The Media, the Campaign, and the Message.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (2): 259–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurian, Paul-Henri, and Haynes, Audrey. 1993. “Campaign Strategy in Presidential Primaries, 1976–88.” American Journal of Political Science 37: 335–41.Google Scholar
Haynes, Audrey A., and Murray, Sarah. 1998. “Why Do the News Media Cover Certain Candidates More than Others? The Antecedents of State and National News Coverage in the 1992 Presidential Nomination Campaign.” American Politics Quarterly 26 (4): 420–38.Google Scholar
Hill, Kim Quaile, and Leighley, Jan E.. 1996. “Political Parties and Class Mobilization in Contemporary United States Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (3): 787–804.Google Scholar
Mayer, William G., and Hagen, Michael. 2000. “The Modern Politics of Presidential Selection: How Changing the Rules Really Did Change the Game.” In Mayer, William, ed., In Pursuit of the White House 2000: How We Choose Our Presidential Nominees. New York: Chatham House Publishers, 1–56.Google Scholar
Mayer, William G., and Busch, Andrew E.. 2004. The Front-Loading Problem in Presidential Nominations. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Norrander, Barbara. 1992. Super Tuesday: Regional Politics and Presidential Primaries. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.Google Scholar
Norrander, Barbara. 2000. “The End Game in Post-Reform Presidential Nominations.” Journal of Politics 62: 999–1013Google Scholar
Robinson, Michael J., and Sheehan, Margaret A.. 1983. Over the Wire and on TV: CBS and UPI in Campaign '80. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Stone, Walter J., Atkeson, Lonna Rae, and Rapoport, Ronald. 1992. “Turning On or Turning Off: Mobilization and Demobilization Effects of Participation in Presidential Nomination Campaigns.” American Journal of Political Science 36: 665–91.Google Scholar