Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:43:24.117Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cross-over Voting and the Democratic Party's Reform Rules

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Communications
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 70 , Issue 2 , June 1976 , pp. 536
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1976

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

* I am grateful to Dennis Affholter for preparing the analysis decks and making the computer runs. Professor Jack Dennis graciously made available his 1972 survey of the Wisconsin electorate. The University of Wisconsin Survey Research Laboratory and its director, Professor Harry P. Sharp, were very helpful in supplying the 1964 and 1968 survey data.

1 Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States, Article II, section 4.

2 “Call to the Democratic National Convention” (mimeo, 1975), Resolution II: Qualifications of State Delegations, section (c).

3 Democratic National Committee, “Research Project on Section 9 of our Mandate and Guidelines A-3 and C-3” (mimeo, 1975), p. 3Google Scholar.

4 “Call to the Democratic National Convention,” Resolution II, section (c).

5 Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, “The Wisconsin Presidential Primary: Open or Closed?”, Research Bulletin 75-RB-1, August, 1975, p. 11Google Scholar.

6 Arkansas, with 26 delegate votes, and Idaho, with 16 delegate votes, hold presidential preference primaries which bind delegates but do not select them. In both states voters declare a party preference at the polls. These regulations also violate the purpose of the Democratic selection rules.

7 Report of the Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection, Mandate for Reform (Washington, 1970), p. 47Google Scholar.

8 Siegel, Mark A., “Democratic Leader Responds to Open Primary Editorial,” Madison Capital Times, July 21, 1975Google Scholar, Editorial Page.

9 These statewide samples were 702 in 1964, 573 in 1968, and 839 in 1972.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.