Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T15:21:05.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Reformed Nominating System: Its Critics and Uses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2022

Robert T. Nakamura
Robert T. Nakamura*
Affiliation:
Saitama University and Dartmouth College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The debate on the current presidential nominating system centers on the consequences of formal changes in the rules and laws governing it: the formalization of opportunities for participation in the Democratic Party as well as changes like public financing and the increased number of primaries affecting both parties. These changes undoubtedly have made the process more permeable and have thereby diminished the power of party elites and enhanced that of the shapers of mass participation such as candidate organizations, direct mail and communications specialists, and the mass media. Critics have faulted this system for replacing party professionals with others less interested in or less able to select nominees popular with voters and capable of governing if elected. In this short essay, I will examine some of the critics' arguments, note some positive effects of the reforms, and suggest that the new system is an apt one for the present, de-aligned electoral environment.

Type
Articles
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , Fall 1983 , pp. 667 - 672
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1983

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

1 Most directly In Nakamura, Robert T. and Sullivan, Denis G., “Party Democracy and Democratic Control,” in Bumham, W. D. and Weinberg, M. W., eds., American Politics and Public Policy (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1978)Google Scholar; and “Neo-Conservatlsm and Presidential Nomination Reforms: A Critique,” Congress and the Presidency (Autumn 1982).

2 See Sullivan, Denis G. et al. , “Candidates, Caucuses and Issues,” in Maisel, L. and Cooper, J., eds., The Impact of the Electoral Process (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1977)Google Scholar, and Farah, Barbara G. et al. , “Convention Delegates in the Post-Reform Era,” in Lengle, James and Shafer, Byron E., eds., Presidential Politics, second ed. (New York: St. Martin's, 1982).Google Scholar

3 See Nakamura, and Sullivan, , “Professionalism Reconsidered—The Case of the 1976 Presidential Nominating Conventions,” unpublished paper, 1983.Google Scholar

4 See Sullivan, Denis G. et al. , The Politics of Representation (New York: St. Martin's, 1974).Google Scholar

5 Polsby, Nelson W. and Wildavsky, Aaron B., “Uncertainty and Decision-Making at the National Conventions,” in Polsby, Nelson W., Dentier, R. A., and Smith, P. A., eds. Politics and Social Life (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1963).Google Scholar

6 See Nakamura, Robert T., “Beyond Purism and Professionalism: Styles of Convention Delegate Followership,” American Journal of Political Science 24 (1980), 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 See Sullivan, , et al., The Politics of Representation; and, “The Republican Convention,” Political Science Quarterly (1977).Google Scholar

8 See Polsby, Nelson W., “The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives,” The American Political Science Review 62 (1968), 144–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Polsby and Wildavsky, op. cit.

10 Burnham, Walter Dean, Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics (New York: Norton, 1970).Google Scholar