THE EVOLUTION OF THE AMERICAN PARTY SYSTEM AND

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

The American “Party Systems” • Historical party systems separated by realigning elections or periods: Framers' Non-Partisan System (1789 -1792) First Party System (1796 -1816) 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 (1820 -1824) collapse of Federalist Party collapse of Congressional Caucus

American Party Systems (cont. ) Second Party System (1828 -1852) 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 (1856 -64) Democrats (pro-South) vs. Republicans (N. Whigs + Free Soil) (North)

American Party Systems (cont. ) Third Party System (1868 -1892) 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

American Party Systems (cont. ) Fourth Party System (1896 -1928) 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

American Party Systems (cont. ) Fifth (New Deal) Party System (1932 -1968) 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.

American Party Systems (cont. ) Sixth Party System (1972 -2000? ) 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)

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?

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.

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

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

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. "

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

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 (1832 -1936) » otherwise absolute majority » repeated ballots » no elimination

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 (1832 -1908) • The Mixed System (1912 -1968) • The Candidate-Dominant System (1972 -present) James W. Ceaser, Presidential Selection: Theory and Development, 1979

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.

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)

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

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

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 (1920 -1940 s): – – outright repeal separated from delegate selection unpledged delegates run "favorite son" candidates

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.

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

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.

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”

Post-1968 Democratic Party Reforms • The development national party rules: Mc. Govern 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

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.

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).

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.

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

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