Political Parties

Brownstein

The Election Cycle
Since American elections are regular, we can easily examine the cycle in which elections at all levels take place. While there are some variations endemic to the level at which elections take place (stratarchy), generally one can discover the following pattern:

1) recruiting candidates for office
party recruitment vs. self-recruitment
when is decision made?
differences in patterns of recruitment related to potential success

2) nomination campaigns
party committees vs. party-in-the-electorate
the primary system
strengths and weaknesses

3) strategic planning for the general election
pre-campaign planning
campaign strategy
money, organization, money, media, money

4) the general election
general strategy
Electoral College strategy


Since these patterns or cycles are "locked in" those seeking political office can fairly much plan in advance their strategies (to attain the nomination, to attain office). Advanced planning is assisted by a series of campaign "consultants"--strategists, handlers, media specialists, etc.

How is this different from other countries?

1) recruiting candidates for office

one of the primary tasks of a political party is to get candidates to run for office

in most party systems, nominations are tightly controlled by party leaders

this is especially true in systems with mass-based parties,
multi-member districts and list systems

if there is competition for a seat (or a place on the list) the "battle" in fought internally

party recruited candidates are thus the norm

in the US, with its single-member district system and it caucus parties, individuals associated with the party (but not necessarily the leadership) may seek the nomination of the party with the battle fought in an open caucus, convention, or in a primary election

there is thus, in the American system, more opportunity for self-recruited candidates

How do these variations in recruitment "fit" with the organizational styles of the caucus and mass-based parties?

depending upon the party's competitiveness in any particular election district,
this is either a very difficult or very easy task

candidates are easy to recruit in safe districts and difficult to recuit in
districts where party has little chance of success

in competitive districts both the candidates and the party are conscious of
making the correct decisions to achieve electoral success

in districts where the party doesn't have much of a chance, the party often accepts candidates who are willing to expend their own resources rather than to expend party resources on a futile race

2) nomination campaigns

open caucuses, conventions, and primaries are the major arenas in which party nominations take place. Both the caucus and convention have decreased dramatically at non-local levels. In part this is due to demands for greater access to the process by the-party-in-the-electorate and in part it is due to the lack of strong organizations at the state and national level.

While most of the research on conventions has been done at the national level, many of the characteristics of convention behavior are the same.

In general, 5 types of conventions have been identified:

Low Conflict Conventions

Confirmation	incumbent renominated 1996-Clinton
Inheritance	protege is natural selection of party vice-president 1988-Bush
Inner Group Selection	small group of party elite selects 1884-Cleveland

High Conflict Convention

Compromise In Stalemate	no majority for major candidates convention turns to darkhorse 1924--Davis--103rd ballot
Factional Victory	one "side" wins 1960-Kennedy 1964-Goldwater 1972-McGovern

Along with choosing nominees, conventions may also change the rules of future nomination process actions. Later, we will explore some of the changes which have altered the nomination process at the national level.


Direct Primaries

As discussed earlier, the direct primary was a reform of the Progressive era designed to increase the participation of the general citizenry in the nomination process and thus to pull the nomination out of the hands of political bosses and political machines.

It is now, far and away, the most utilized of the nomination selection procedures used to make statewide nominations in viturally every stay and even in most local elections. It is also now the dominant procedure in the presidential selection process as well.

There are four basic types of primaries that have been utilized in the US:

closed primary: only individuals registered as party members may participate

open primary: individual may select the ballot of either party,
regardless of registration status

wide-open (blanket) primary: either party's primary for each office

cross-filing primary: candidate could file to run in either party's primary

(advisory preference primary)


Alleged Effects of Primaries:

on the parties:
weaken control of party in the nomination process in general (+)
weaken control of party in government, especially the legislature (+)
encourage/ reward candidates not reflective of party mainstream (+/-)
encourage one-partyism in states with closed primaries (-)
unbalances tickets (+)


on voters:
primary voters differ from party identifiers (+)
characteristics of primary voters( older, better educated, homeowners, male)
disenfranchises voters of other party in open-party states with closed primaries (+)
increase turnout overall (-)
but reduce voter interest in general election in one-party states with closed primaries(+)

Party Reforms of the Nomination/ Selection Process

As mentioned earlier in the semester, primaries began to have a major impact upon the presidential race in 1960 when Kennedy used the West Virginia primary to demonstrate that southern voters would vote for a Catholic nominee for president.

The primaries were to increase in power dramatically in 8 short years. In 1968, Senator Eugene McCarthy utilized the primaries as method of challenging President Lyndon Johnson and his conduct of the Viet Nam war. McCarthy's surprising showing in New Hampshire was one of the factors in Johnson's decision not to run for another term. Vice-President Hubert Humphrey and Senator Robert Kennedy entered the primaries in short order. Robert Kennedy's assassination on the night of his victory in California added to the turmoil of the Democratic national convention. During the convention many felt that "party elites" (represented by such figures as Mayor Daley of Chicago) were subverting "the people's" wishes. With the nomination at stake, many of the rules governing the primaries were challenged. Almost all of the challenges were unsuccessful. This led to the creation of a commission to clarify, streamline and "open-up" the party's nomination process.

A series of commissions after the 1968 Democratic Party convention have altered the candidate selection process of the Democratic Party and secondarily to the Republican Party. Each commission attempted to "correct" what were perceived to be problems with the preceding primary, convention, and general election. The changes have thus been a response to the failure to win. These commissions and their highlights include:

1. The McGovern-Fraser Commission

After 1968, many felt that the convention had been unrefelctive of the sentiments of Democratic voters and that leaders had used unfair tactics in securing the nomination for Humphrey. This convention recommended the following:

A. Required states to take affirmative steps to ensure representation of minorities, women and youth

B. Banned unit rule under which all of a state's votes would be cast as a unit

C. Restricted the number of delegates that a party committee could select to 10 percent of the state delegation

Thus many traditional methods of delegate selection controlled by the party were banned or curtailed. The number of states having primaries expanded from 17 in 1968 to 30 in 1976.

After McGovern's defeat in 1972, the Democrats review procedures via

2. The Mikulski Commission

A. Pulled back from strict representation to proportional representation for candidates receiving 10% of primary votes

B. Restricted crossover primaries

After 1976

3. The Winograd Commission

A. Strengthened the prohibition against open primaries

B. To encourage state parties to select more elected officials, additional at-large delegates (equal to no more than 10% of the state's base delegation) are allocated to the states.

After 1980 Carter defeat:

4. The Hunt Commission

A. Increased threshold for representation to 20%

B. Allowed for unpledged delegates status for party and elected officials

C. Tried to shorten the primary season

After 1984,

5. The Fairness Commission

Minor modifications, including decreasing threshold to 15%, allowing Wisconsin and Montana to return to open primaries

3. strategic planning
running for political office in systems with regular elections allows for the development of sophisticated planning

the level of planning and its sophistication increases exponentially with the level of the office

in general, strategic planning involves the following decisions:

1) do I run

2) what are the financial resources that will be necessary

3) when do I declare my intention to run

4) who is my opposition in:
a) the primary;'
b) the general election

5) what isues are likely to involved and what is my position

6) who are the traditional base, what independents are the key to success


to answer these questions, a sophisticated battery of consultants is now available:
a) media specialists
b) fundraising consultants
c) speech writers
d) strategists

Most of these consultants are hired early and are part of the candidate's own staff. During the primaries the party remains neutral. After the nomination process is over, the candidate generally retains his/her own staff. Thus, campaigns have:

candidate-centered campaign staffs

not party-centered campaign staffs. The party is thus placed in a secondary postiion. After these people are elected to office, they generally do not have much of a debt to the party for their success.

Another factor which lessens allegiance to the party is the increasing impact of money in campaigns. Many of the facotrs which lead to success--polling, media, etc. cost money. For most offices, the party cannot contribute the amounts of money necessary. Thus candidates employ fund-raising consultants. Often the money comes from major contributors. Their goals and the party's goals may often be at odds.