Reforming the Presidential Nomination Process

2009 ◽  
Vol 42 (01) ◽  
pp. 27-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Tolbert ◽  
Peverill Squire
Keyword(s):  
Primary Elections ◽  
Recent History ◽  
National Committee ◽  
Presidential Nomination ◽  
Presidential Primary ◽  
Presidential Nominations

The 2008 presidential nomination was marked by the most aggressive frontloading in recent history; the process was a mess from the outset. Frontloading is the trend in recent presidential nominations in which states schedule their primaries and caucuses near the beginning of the delegate-selection season to have a greater impact on the process. In 1976, 10% of the delegates had been chosen by March 2. In 2008, 70% of the delegates had been chosen by that same date. As part of their ongoing efforts to address frontloading and other problems, both the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Republican National Committee (RNC) revised the schedules and rules for 2008 presidential primary elections and caucuses.

Presidential Primary Turnout 1972–2016

2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (04) ◽  
pp. 755-760 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lonna Rae Atkeson ◽  
Cherie D. Maestas
Keyword(s):  
Primary Elections ◽  
Aggregate Level ◽  
Presidential Nomination ◽  
Presidential Primary ◽  
Meaningful Participation ◽  
Institutional Structures ◽  
Micro Level ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Presidential Nominations

ABSTRACTWe explore the implications of sequential presidential primary elections for turnout in selecting the presidential party nominees. Drawing from a micro-level theory of participation in sequential elections, we develop a set of aggregate-level hypotheses that tease out different ways that candidate mobilization efforts as well as the legal and institutional structures within a sequential contest influence turnout in presidential nomination contests. Using data from all state primary elections from 1972–2016, we find that electorates facing winnowed candidate pools, and those with contests after the effective endings to presidential contests have substantially reduced turnout that effectively disenfranchises voters in many states. Sequenced primary elections lead to lower overall turnout and less meaningful participation for many voters during presidential nominations contests.

scholarly journals The Matter of Chance: Auditing Web Search Results Related to the 2020 U.S. Presidential Primary Elections Across Six Search Engines

2021 ◽  
pp. 089443932110068
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Urman ◽  
Mykola Makhortykh ◽  
Roberto Ulloa
Keyword(s):  
Search Engine ◽  
Search Engines ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Web Search ◽  
Primary Elections ◽  
Virtual Agents ◽  
Search Results ◽  
Presidential Primary ◽  
Large Scale Analysis ◽  
Algorithmic Information

We examine how six search engines filter and rank information in relation to the queries on the U.S. 2020 presidential primary elections under the default—that is nonpersonalized—conditions. For that, we utilize an algorithmic auditing methodology that uses virtual agents to conduct large-scale analysis of algorithmic information curation in a controlled environment. Specifically, we look at the text search results for “us elections,” “donald trump,” “joe biden,” “bernie sanders” queries on Google, Baidu, Bing, DuckDuckGo, Yahoo, and Yandex, during the 2020 primaries. Our findings indicate substantial differences in the search results between search engines and multiple discrepancies within the results generated for different agents using the same search engine. It highlights that whether users see certain information is decided by chance due to the inherent randomization of search results. We also find that some search engines prioritize different categories of information sources with respect to specific candidates. These observations demonstrate that algorithmic curation of political information can create information inequalities between the search engine users even under nonpersonalized conditions. Such inequalities are particularly troubling considering that search results are highly trusted by the public and can shift the opinions of undecided voters as demonstrated by previous research.

Forecasting Presidential Nominations in 2016: #WePredictedClintonANDTrump

2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (04) ◽  
pp. 691-695 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Dowdle ◽  
Randall E. Adkins ◽  
Karen Sebold ◽  
Jarred Cuellar
Keyword(s):  
Conventional Wisdom ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presidential Nomination ◽  
Presidential Nominations

ABSTRACTA number of scholars successfully modeled and predicted presidential nomination outcomes from 1996–2008. However, dramatic changes occurred in subsequent years that would seem to make replicating these results challenging at best. Building on those earlier studies, we utilize a series of OLS models that included measures of preprimary resources and early campaign successes or failures to forecast that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump would win the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations in 2016. This outcome suggests that some fundamental factors governing nomination outcomes have not changed despite the conventional wisdom.

Conditional Arbiters: The Limits of Political Party Influence in Presidential Nominations

2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (04) ◽  
pp. 709-715 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wayne P. Steger
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Political Party ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Campaign Finance ◽  
Elected Officials ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Presidential Nomination ◽  
Party Elites ◽  
The Invisible ◽  
Presidential Nominations

ABSTRACTThe 2016 Republican presidential nomination challenges arguments about political party insiders’ influence on the outcome. This article argues, first, that party insider influence is conditional on the participation, coalescence, and timing of party stakeholders behind a front-runner during the invisible primary, and second, that party insider influence has probably declined since the 2000 presidential election. Data on endorsements by elite elected officials in open presidential nominations from 1984 to 2016 show that party insiders’ participation and convergence of support behind the front-runner is less extensive than what was found by Cohen, Karol, Noel, and Zaller (2008), though the data sets differ. Party insiders participate and unify more readily when the party coalition is stable and there is a candidate in the race who has demonstrable national support. Party elites remain on the sidelines when the party coalition is divided or when there is uncertainty about the appeal of candidates (Ryan 2011; Whitby 2014). The potency of insider endorsements likely has declined with the rise of social media, the changing campaign finance landscape, and the reemergence of populism in each party.

scholarly journals Money for Nothing? Financing the 2016 and 2020 U.S. Presidential Nomination Campaigns

2020 ◽  
pp. 39-62
Author(s):  
Maciej Turek
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Campaign Finance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Major Party ◽  
Presidential Nomination ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Presidential Nominations

The aim of the paper is to analyze the relationship between campaign money and winning the 2016 and 2020 presidential nominations in the United States. While in the last two decades of the twentieth century candidates who raised most money almost always became major party nominees, the record is mixed for presidential cycles 2004-2012. By comparing various dimensions of campaign finance, including activities of candidates' campaign committees and outside groups, the Author demonstrates that while successful fundraising, resulting in dozens of millions of dollars at the disposal of candidates, seems necessary to run a competitive campaign, raising the most money is no longer pre-requisite for becoming major party presidential nominee.

The Path to Polarization: McGovern-Fraser, Counter-Reformers, and the Rise of the Advocacy Party

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-109
Author(s):  
Adam Hilton
Keyword(s):  
Social Movements ◽  
Interest Groups ◽  
American Politics ◽  
Democratic Party ◽  
Institutional Capacity ◽  
Direct Result ◽  
Advocacy Organizations ◽  
Presidential Nomination ◽  
Party Building ◽  
Presidential Nominations

American politics has been transformed by the emergence of the advocacy party—a form of organization in which extraparty interest groups, advocacy organizations, and social movements substitute for the diminished institutional capacity and popular legitimacy of the formal party apparatus. Many scholars have rightly pointed to the presidential nomination reforms made by the Democratic Party's post-1968 Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection (known as the McGovern-Fraser Commission) as a key contributor to polarization by increasing the influence of ideological activists. However, I argue that polarization is not the direct result of the actions of McGovern-Fraser reformers, but rather the outcome of their pitched battle with intraparty opponents of reform, who, while failing to prevent changes to presidential nominations, were ultimately successful in defeating the party-building dimension of the reformers’ project of party reconstruction. The product of their intraparty struggle was a hybrid institutional amalgam that layered new participatory arrangements over a hollow party structure, thus setting the Democratic Party on a path toward the advocacy party and its polarizing politics.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document