Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:26:41.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Invisible Primary and Its Effects on Democratic Choice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2009

John Aldrich
John Aldrich
Affiliation:
Duke University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The current method for selecting presidential nominees by the two major parties went into place mostly in 1972 and certainly by 1976, after Buckely v. Valeo. It was the natural culmination of reform efforts over the history of the republic in that, while prior reforms consistently invoked greater openness and democratic governance as rationales for their adoption, this method actually empowered voters as the central figures in determining who would be nominated (see Aldrich 1987). This fact became fully evident almost at once. The selection via primaries of senator George McGovern in 1972 and governor Jimmy Carter in 1976 as the Democratic presidential nominees arguably not only would not have happened, they would not have even come close to winning nomination without successful appeal to the voting public.

Type
Symposium
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 33 - 38
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

Abramson, Paul R., Aldrich, John H., and Rohde, David W.. 1991. Change and Continuity in the 1988 Elections. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H. 1980a. Before the Convention: Strategies and Choices in Presidential Nomination Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John H. 1980b. “A Dynamic Model of Presidential Nomination Campaigns.” American Political Science Review 74 (September): 651–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John H. 1987. “Methods and Actors: The Relationship of Processes to Candidates.” In Perspectives on Presidential Selection, ed. Heard, Alexander and Nelson, Michael. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1988. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Marty, Karol, David, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John. 2008. Political Parties and Presidential Nominations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gurian, Paul Henri. 1986. “Resource Allocation Strategies in Presidential Nomination Campaigns.” American Journal of Political Science 30 (November): 802–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurian, Paul Henri, Haynes, Audrey A., Crespin, Michael, and Zorn, Christopher. 2004. “The Calculus of Concession: Press Coverage and the Dynamics of Winnowing in Presidential Nominations.” American Politics Research 32 (May): 310–37.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1978. “The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 72 (June): 469–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norrander, Barbara. 1992. Super Tuesday: Regional Politics and Presidential Primaries. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Norrander, Barbara. 2006. “The Attrition Game: Initial Resources, Initial Contests and the Exit of Candidates during the U.S. Presidential Primary Season.” British Journal of Political Science 36: 487–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paolino, Philip Owen. 1995. “Candidate Name Recognition and the Dynamics of the Pre-primary Period of the Presidential Nomination Process. Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University.Google Scholar
Price, David E. 1984. Bringing the Parties Back. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar