Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:51:28.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reforming Presidential Nominations: Rotating State Primaries or a National Primary?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2009

Caroline J. Tolbert ,
David P. Redlawsk  and
Daniel C. Bowen
Caroline J. Tolbert
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
David P. Redlawsk
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
Daniel C. Bowen
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As part of their ongoing efforts to address frontloading and other perceived problems, both the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Republican National Committee (RNC) proposed revised schedules and rules for 2008. The major changes for the Democrats were that two new states were allowed to join Iowa and New Hampshire in violating the official February 5 start date. The idea was that these states—Nevada from the West and South Carolina from the South—would enhance participation by more diverse populations (Latinos and African Americans). While the Republican rules called for states to lose half of their delegate vote if they violated the timing rules, the Democrats implemented a “death penalty” requiring any state violating the timing rules to lose all of its delegates. The New York Times called these changes the biggest shift in the way Democrats have nominated their presidential candidates in 30 years. Yet in the end these changes did little to lessen frontloading, as 70% of all delegates were actually chosen by the beginning of March. Two large states (Michigan and Florida) defied both national parties and voted before February 5.

Type
Symposium
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 71 - 79
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

Altschuler, Bruce E. 2008. “Selecting Presidential Nominees by National Primary: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?” The Forum 5 (4): Article 5. http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol5/iss4/art5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C., Blais, Andre, Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Listhaug, Ola. 2005. Losers' Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Christopher, and LoTempio, Andrew. 2002. “Winning, Losing, and Political Trust in America.” British Journal of Political Science 32: 335–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 2007. “Reasoning about Institutional Change: Winners, Losers and Support for Electoral Reforms.” British Journal of Political Science 37: 455–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Karp, Jeffrey. 2002. “When Might Institutions Change? Elite Support for Direct Democracy in Three Nations.” Political Research Quarterly 55: 731–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Karp, Jeffrey. 2006. “Why Politicians Like Electoral Institutions: Self-Interest, Values, or Ideology.” Journal of Politics 68: 434–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, Bruce E., Donovan, Todd, and Tolbert, Caroline J., eds. 2008. Democracy in the States: Experiments in Election Reform. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Donovan, Todd, and Bowler, Shaun. 2004. Reforming the Republic: Democratic Institutions for the New America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hull, Christopher. 2007. Grassroots Rules: How the Iowa Caucus Helps Elect American Presidents. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Knight, Brian, and Schiff, Nathan. 2008. “Momentum and Social Learning in Presidential Primaries.” National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane J. 1986. Why We Lost the ERA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, William G., and Busch, Andrew E.. 2003. The Front-Loading Problem in Presidential Nominations. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
McDonald, Michael. 2008. United States Election Project. http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm.Google Scholar
Norrander, Barbara. 1992. Super Tuesday: Regional Politics and Presidential Primaries. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Squire, Peverill, ed. 1989. The Iowa Caucuses and the Presidential Nominating Process. Boulder: Westview Press.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline. 2003. “Direct Democracy and Institutional Realignment in the American States.” Political Science Quarterly 118 (3): 467–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline, Smith, Daniel, and Green, John. 2009. “Strategic Voting and Legislative Redistricting Reform: District and Statewide Representational Winners and Losers.” Political Research Quarterly 62 (1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winebrenner, Hugh. 1998 The Iowa Precinct Caucuses: The Making of a Media Event. 2nd ed. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar