Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-rj9fg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-22T19:55:06.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reforming the Presidential NominationProcess

Editors' Introduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2009

Caroline Tolbert  and
Peverill Squire
Caroline Tolbert
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
Peverill Squire
Affiliation:
University of Missouri
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The 2008 presidential nomination was marked by the most aggressivefrontloading in recent history; the process was a mess from theoutset. Frontloading is the trend in recent presidential nominationsin which states schedule their primaries and caucuses near thebeginning of the delegate-selection season to have a greater impacton the process. In 1976, 10% of the delegates had been chosen byMarch 2. In 2008, 70% of the delegates had been chosen by that samedate. As part of their ongoing efforts to address frontloading andother problems, both the Democratic National Committee (DNC) andRepublican National Committee (RNC) revised the schedules and rulesfor 2008 presidential primary elections and caucuses.

Type
Symposium
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 27 - 32
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aldrich, John. 2009. “The Invisible Primary and Its Deleterious Effects on Democratic Choice.” PS: Political Science 42 (January): 33–38.Google Scholar
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
Atkeson, Lonna, and Maestas, Cherie. 2009. “Front Loading, Participation, and the Evolution of the Reformed Presidential Nominating System.” PS: Political Science 42 (January): 59–64.Google Scholar
Balz, Dan. 2008. “Obama Team Seeks Changes in Primaries.” Washington Post, August 21.Google Scholar
Battaglini, Marco, Morton, Rebecca, and Palfrey, Thomas. 2007. “Efficiency, Equity, and Timing of Voting Mechanisms.” American Political Science Review 101 (3): 404–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary, and Munger, M. C.. 1989. “Closeness, Expenditures, and Turnout in the 1982 U.S. House Elections.” American Political Science Review 83 (1): 217–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, Bruce, Donovan, Todd, and Tolbert, Caroline, eds. 2008. Democracy in the States: Experiments in Election Reform. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Donovan, Todd. 2007. “The Goal for Reform—Make Elections Worth Stealing.” PS: Political Science and Politics 40 (4): 681–86.Google Scholar
Donovan, Todd. 2009. “Beyond Expectations: Effects of Early Elections in U.S. Presidential Nomination Contests.” PS: Political Science 42 (January): 45–52.Google Scholar
Donovan, Todd, and Tolbert, Caroline. 2007. “State Electoral Context and Voter Participation: Who is Mobilized by What?” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Donovan, Todd, and Bowler, Shaun. 2004. Reforming the Republic: Democratic Institutions for the New America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Haynes, Audrey, and Pitts, Brian. 2009. “Making an Impression in the Twenty-First Century: New Media in 2008 Presidential Nomination Campaigns.” PS: Political Science 42 (January): 53–58.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
Lewis-Beck, Michael, and Squire, Peverill. 2009. “Iowa: The Most Representative State?” PS: Political Science 42 (January): 39–44.Google Scholar
Mayer, William, ed. 2000. In Pursuit of the White House 2000: How We Choose Our Presidential Nominees. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
Mayer, William. 2009. “An Incremental Approach to Presidential Nomination Reform.” PS: Political Science 42 (January): 65–69.Google Scholar
Mayer, William G., and Busch, Andrew E.. 2003. The Front-Loading Problem in Presidential Nominations. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Norrander, Barbara. 1996. “Nomination Politics in the Post-Reform Era.” Political Research Quarterly 49 (4): 875–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1960. The Semi-sovereign People. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Shear, Michael D. 2008. “GOP to Consider Major Changes in Primary Calendar.” Washington Post, August 22.Google Scholar
Squire, Peverill, ed. 1989. The Iowa Caucuses and the Presidential Nominating Process. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 2008. “The Iowa Caucuses, 1972–2008: A Eulogy.” The Forum 5 (4): Article 1. http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol5/iss4/art1.CrossRefGoogle 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, Redlawsk, David, and Bowen, Daniel. 2009. “Reforming the Presidential Nomination Process: Rotating State Primaries or a National Primary?” PS: Political Science 42 (January): 71–79.Google Scholar
Winebrenner, Hugh. 1998 The Iowa Precinct Caucuses: The Making of a Media Event. 2nd ed. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar