The Presidential Selection Process
NEWS
The presidential selection process has incurred some subtle and some
not so
subtle changes since the Constitutional Convention of 1787
1. After the Constitutional
Convention- early 1800s
In this period, the operation of the presidential selection process reflected
the
arguments and compromises associated with the Electoral College.
Many have argued that the Electoral College was a "jerry-rigged" compromise
designed to
allay the fears of almost all sides in the debate over the selection process.
|
Those who wanted state control of selection |
state legislatures had the right to determine the mode of selection of electors |
|
Small state fears of large state dominance |
small states overrepresented due to addition of 2 electors
for senators each state has one vote when election moves to House of Representatives |
|
Large states |
electors partially reflect the larger populations of large states (although not direct proportion due to above) |
|
Demand for popular participation |
States could allow citizens to be directly involved in choice of electors (6 did) |
Some scholars argue that due to the
way the Electoral College was originally seen to operate, that the Electoral
College would not only select but actually determine the eligibility of
potential presidents. Other scholars argue that the delegates actually believed
that the Electoral College would only perform the winnowing and nominating
functions and leave the actual selection process to the House of
Representatives.
2. Early 1800s
By the turn of the nineteenth century, national political parties had formed
and taken over the winnowing and nominating processes. At first it was the
congressional
caucus of each party that chose its party's nominee
While some argue that the caucus approached produced some of the "best" presidents
(Jefferson, Madison, Monroe), many argued the approach encourage
intragovernmental bickering and made the executive dependent upon the legislature.
It also exclude a "popular" connection (especially if you happened to be of a
different
party than your representative!
By the 1820s disaffection with the
caucus was strong. This dissatisfaction, coupled with an expanding,
non-propertied electorate, gave rise to national nominating convention in 1831
(Anti-Masonic party) and 1832 (National Republican or Whig party).
This moved the locus of review of qualifications from the legislature to
state party officials. In a sense this moved the review of qualifications closer to
"the people", albeit through state party officials as the representatives of "the people"
It could thus be argued that the "popular connection" was strengthened
as the
relationship to the legislature was weakened.
3. Early 1900s
the Progressive movement at the turn of the century argued for
voters
having a direct say via the primary
This was partly a reflection of the dissatisfaction with "boss rule" and
partly a desire for "middle-class control" of the nominating process
(many
"bosses'" power was based upon poor and working class allegiance)
Progressives argued that bosses and their surrogates controlled the process
for their
own gains and utilized patronage as the cornerstone of their power
they argued that primaries would establish a popular connection and
break
control by political bosses
nomination control was still in the hands of party professionals into the 1960s
with many believing that the primaries functioned as a testing or proving
ground rather than as the final selection method (as late as 1968 the Democrats
could nominate Hubert Humphrey who didn't win a single
primary)
View "The Making of the President, 1960"