Evolution of the Presidential Selection Process During the Constitutional Convention

Author(s):  
Emmett H. Buell ◽  
William G. Mayer
1983 ◽  
Vol 16 (04) ◽  
pp. 695-698
Author(s):  
Nelson W. Polsby

The political science profession is very far indeed from having pronounced its last word on the subject of the reforms of the presidential nomination process which have so dramatically transformed American elections and the party system. The current wave of reform began over a decade ago, and, more or less on schedule, political scientists have now begun regularly to report findings that suggest that they have been incorporating questions about the consequences of these reforms into their research.Many observers quite rightly have noted that central to debate about party reform among politicians and commentators have been questions of legitimacy that reflect varying conceptions of democratic theory. In this brief essay, I will consider a few of these questions further and speculate about the respects in which the work of political scientists might assist in resolving them.Perhaps the earliest questions arose over the changes that reform seemed to induce in the sorts of people taking part in the national party conventions. Questions arose as to their “representativeness”—and especially in light of two successive Democratic national conventions— 1968 and 1972—at which there were many challenges to the right of delegates to be present. In 1968 the complaints centered on the propriety of seating delegates selected earlier than the election year and selected through processes dominated by state party leaders rather than by the insurgent forces of protest over the war in Vietnam. These complaints were largely ineffective in influencing the outcome of the 1968 nomination, but their impact on subsequent events was substantial. They formed the basis upon which the Democratic party undertook to examine the delegate selection process in its McGovern-Fraser Commission of 1969, and people associated with these complaints staffed the Commission.


Author(s):  
James S. Fishkin

Consider four main arguments against applications of deliberative democracy—domination by the more advantaged, polarization, lack of citizen competence, and the gap between mini-publics and the broader society. We consider why these problems seem intractable according to the political theory literature. Drawing on the case studies in Part III, we show that these challenges can be overcome. Thought experiments for deliberation are considered, drawing on work from John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas. The argument for applied deliberative democracy, as in Deliberative Polling, is developed. “Deliberative systems,” where deliberation enters a democratic decision process at one point or another, are discussed. Topics include reform of the US presidential selection process, commissions within specific issue domains such as the Texas utility experience, the Japanese use of Deliberative Polling, and the use of Deliberation Day. The issue of constitutional change is also discussed, drawing on the recent Deliberative Poll in Mongolia.


2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (04) ◽  
pp. 775-781
Author(s):  
Jody C Baumgartner

ABSTRACTIn this article, I present results from a conditional logit model of vice presidential selection that predicts the selection of vice presidential candidates for both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016. Examining contested major party vice presidential nominations from 1960 through 2012, the model finds media exposure, political experience, military service, age, and demographic (gender/racial/ethnic) diversity to be significant factors in the selection process. In the end, the model correctly predicts 15 of the 21 (71.%) contested major party nominations during this period. For 2016 the model correctly and convincingly predicts Mike Pence as Donald Trump’s selection, but incorrectly predicts Cory Booker as Hillary Clinton’s pick. This reduces the overall percentage of correct predictions from 1960 to 2016 to 69.6% (16 of 23), but the approach taken here still represents a more appropriate way for social scientists to think about what factors drive vice presidential selection.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document