Chapter Seven: The Primaries and Caucuses

It used to be that a political party’s nominee for president was selected by influential party members at the party’s national convention—generally after a lot of wheeling and dealing in smoke-filled rooms. Realizing that this was not a very democratic way to choose a major-party presidential candidate, the Democratic and Republican parties have over the last half century opened up the process to voters. The result is today’s often confusing schedule of primaries and caucuses, which makes voters—and not party leaders—the VIPs in choosing the parties’ presidential nominees. 

How It Works: Choosing the Delegates

The official role of the primaries and caucuses is to select delegates to the parties’ national conventions held during the summer. Even in states where primary voters check off the presidential candidate of their choice, they are actually voting for delegates who support that candidate and will go to the convention representing the voters’ preferences. In other words, a vote for Candidate X is actually a vote for Delegate Y, who in turn pledges to vote for Candidate X at the party convention.

Because of the primaries and caucuses, the function of conventions in recent decades has not been to choose a nominee from among several contenders, but simply to ratify the choices that voters have already made. It’s not impossible to imagine a situation in which the choice of presidential candidate had to be decided at the convention, but it’s very unlikely. In large part, this is because once a contender seems likely to win the nomination, party activists unify around the candidate to create a united front for the coming general election. This unity building is usually emphasized at the party’s convention. It is possible that the accelerated primary schedule for 2008 will create a different dynamic in delegate selection—more on that later.

 Primary Education: What Is a Primary?

In a primary election, voters go to the polls to choose among a party’s presidential candidates—or among would-be delegates who have pledged to support specific candidates at the party’s national convention. Primaries were conceived early in the twentieth century as one way to take power away from the “party machines” and give the people a role in the nominating process. The primary grew in popularity in the 1970s. In 1960, sixteen states held primaries; by 1980 that had jumped to thirty-five states. In 2008, the Democrats and Republicans each planned to hold primary elections in more than forty-three states and the District of Columbia.

Primary Terminology

When you’re following the news reports and political commentary during primary season, it helps to have an understanding of some of the terms used to describe the different types of primaries. In practice, though, states have many different rules about how primaries are conducted.

 Here are the main types:

 • Closed Primary. Only voters registered with the party can vote in that party’s primary. Held by about fifteen states.

• Open primary. The most common type of primary, held by about twenty-seven states. Voters can choose to vote in a party’s primary, even if they are not registered with this party. In some states, primaries are open to independents but closed to those registered with other parties. In other states, the primaries are open to all voters. Party leaders tend to dislike this type of primary, because it allows voters outside the party to influence the selection of a nominee.

• Advisory primary. Sometimes derisively called a “beauty contest” primary. A few states let voters express a preference for which candidate they like best, independent of selecting convention delegates. Delegates are then chosen through other means, such as caucuses or conventions.

 Primary elections are run differently in different states. In some states, voters mark the candidate they prefer—and delegates to the convention are allocated depending on the popular vote. This is often referred to as a direct presidential preference primary. In other cases, voters see on their ballot the names of the delegates, though the delegates are identified on the ballot as preferring a certain candidate or as uncommitted. This is known as an indirect presidential preference primary.

In some states, the primary is “binding” on the delegates—that is, the delegate promises to vote for the candidate he or she is pledged to, at least on the first ballot at the convention. In other states, the rules are less strict.

In addition, some primaries are “winner-take-all,” so that whichever candidate receives the most popular votes gets all the state’s delegates. Much more common is the “proportional representation” primary, where delegates are awarded roughly in proportion to their popular vote. A candidate who gets 20 percent of the vote, for example, will win about 20 percent of the state’s delegates. All Democratic primaries follow the proportionality principle. 

A Primary Alternative: What’s a Caucus?

In 2008, a very large majority of delegates in both major parties will be chosen by primaries. But states that don’t hold primaries generally convene caucuses as a way to get voters involved in deciding on the party nominees. A caucus is a gathering of voters from the same party at the precinct level; a precinct is the smallest electoral district within a county. Caucuses tend to attract no more than 10 percent of the eligible voters; primaries often get 20 percent or more.

 Caucuses can be a neighborly experience, with people from an area meeting and talking about the merits of the different candidates. In some states, that experience is considered valuable and worth keeping, even though caucuses may seem old-fashioned in the twenty-first century.

Participants in a caucus vote on party platforms and policies and select delegates to the next-higher-level party convention. There may be two or three higher levels, including district or county and state. In a caucus state, all those who want to represent their state at one of the national conventions must first win election as a convention delegate at one of the caucuses.

Caucuses generally occur at a set time and date in locations throughout the state; thousands of caucus meetings can be happening all at once. Party rules require caucus dates, times, and locations to be publicized well in advance so voters can plan to attend. The conventional wisdom is that caucuses are won by the best-organized candidates—those who are able to mobilize large numbers of loyal supporters to attend the caucus meetings.

 The Super-Short Primary Season:Pro and Con

 In 2008, the United States will in effect have its shortest primary season ever. Is that a good thing? 

Pro

•   It forces early consensus so the parties can rally around their designated nominees. A drawn-out primary season can encourage party infighting as the candidates battle for votes over a period of months. A shortened season, on the other hand, means a front-runner generally emerges early (probably by the end of February in 2008). The party can then unite behind his or her candidacy and start planning for the general election instead of tearing itself apart.

•   It avoids placing too much emphasis on voter sentiment in just one or two states. New Hampshire and Iowa aren’t necessarily representative of the country as a whole. And yet these two states—which are racially much whiter than the country as a whole—have had a significant impact on presidential elections simply by voting early. It might be better to cast a wider net and give more voters and more states an early say in shaping the course of the campaign.

•   It rewards candidates with the strongest organizations. A primary season in which more states vote early benefits candidates who have worked hard to build support throughout the country. A shorter primary season thus makes it less likely that a candidate with regional or “fringe” appeal will emerge as the one to beat. 

Con

•   It favors candidates with the most money. It used to be that a presidential candidate could invest heavily in a few early primary states, hoping that major money would start coming in after a successful early showing. Today, however, candidates need to campaign from the start in a larger number of larger states. And that puts pressure on the candidates to raise and spend more money.

•   It means more television ads and Internet emphasis, less “retail” campaigning. It is impossible for candidates to establish a personal presence in so many states in so little time. The result: campaigns based on TV commercials, and less time for the voters to get to know the candidates and vice versa.

•   It creates a period of several months—between March and the summer conventions—when voters lose interest in the election. In 2000, after primary campaigning peaked in March, the number of people paying close attention to the campaign dropped by 50 percent.

•   It puts lesser-known candidates at a disadvantage. Twenty or thirty years ago, it was possible for relatively unknown candidates to do well in early contests in less populous states like Iowa and New Hampshire. This early success, in turn, could attract money, volunteers, and media attention to their campaigns and make them viable contenders for the party nomination. This has become almost impossible with the front-loaded primary schedule.

• Some observers dispute the notion that a shorter primary season will make Iowa and New Hampshire less important. With less time to learn about the candidates, they suggest, voters elsewhere may be more likely to follow the lead of the two earliest states.  

From the book, Choosing the President 20008: A Citizen’s Guide to the Electoral Process.Copyright 2008 by the League of Women Voters

Used by permission of Globe Pequot Press, www.globepequot.com