PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

aiko
presidential elections n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

play fullscreen
1 / 18
Download Presentation
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
233 Views
Download Presentation

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS Nomination Process and General Election

  2. NOMINATION PROCESSThe (Traditional) Caucus/Convention Method1830s-1910s • Initiated during Jacksonian Era • Multiple layers of caucuses electing delegates • Culminating in national convention, which selects nominee • Delegates formally uncommitted, many actually controlled by party bosses • Convention would actually decide nominee; sometimes multiple ballots • Old-style presidential campaigns

  3. NOMINATION PROCESSThe “Mixed” Method1910s-1968 • How Progressives’ “Ideal” Primary would work • Methods by party bosses to subvert primarya.) “beauty contest” primary • b.) “blind” primary • c.) “favorite son” and “stalking horse” candidates

  4. NOMINATION PROCESSThe “Mixed” Method cont’d • Percentage of national convention delegates selected thru primaries • 1912 Dem 32.9, Rep 41.7 • 1916 Dem 53.5, Rep 58.9 • 1924 Dem 35.5, Rep 45.3 • 1948 Dem 36.3, Rep 36.0 • 1960 Dem 38.3, Rep 38.6 • 1968 Dem 40.2, Rep 38.1 • 1972 Dem 65.3, Rep 56.8 • 1992 Dem 66.9, Rep 83.9

  5. NOMINATION PROCESS1968-1972 the big reforms • 1968: LBJ withdraws, RFK and Eugene McCarthy win primaries, HHH wins nomination, protests • 1968-1972: McGovern-Fraser Commission recommends democratized caucuses: open, public, timely, w/clear rules, affirmative action, encouraging delegates to state candidate preferences • Unintended result: many states switched to primary for presidential elections • What if states didn’t comply? – Cousins v. Wigoda, 1975

  6. NOMINATION PROCESS: THE ERA OF ENDLESS REFORM (1972-present) • 1972: McGovern victory followed by catastrophic general election loss • 1976: Unknown Carter parlays early “victory” in Iowa to nomination, using “Big Mo” • EARLY CRITIQUES OF NEW SYSTEM • a.) excluded party bosses • b.) voters too extreme and/or not sufficiently informed (“momentum” too important) • c.) too long and divisive • d.) Iowa and NH too important • e.) too many, or too few, candidates (depending on who you ask) • ---the issue of proportionality

  7. NOMINATION PROCESS: THE ERA OF ENDLESS REFORM (1972-present) IMPACT OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORMS 1.) Federal matching funds in primaries (how to qualify), coupled with overall and state-by-state spending limits 2.) Big Federal subsidies for convention and general election campaign, coupled with spending limits Do proportionality and $$ encourage “nuisance” candidates to stay in the race? Candidates (Bush, Kerry) increasingly “opting out” of some or all Fed. funding

  8. NOMINATION PROCESS: THE ERA OF ENDLESS REFORM (1972-present) • COUNTER-REFORMS OF THE 1980s (Democrats) • a.) “superdelegates”---to bring Dem. Officeholders back • b.) “Super Tuesday”-----to shorten the process and incr. • Southern importance • c.) Democrats back and forth on proportionality: GOP tends to reward primary winners more

  9. NOMINATION PROCESS: THE ERA OF ENDLESS REFORM (1972-present) • MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS • More and more frontloading • % of delegates selected by the 7th week of the primary/caucus season • 1972 D 17%, R 17% • 1980 D 43%, R 37% • 1992 D 43%, R 46% • 1996 D 74%, R 77% • 2000 D 65%, R 68%

  10. NOMINATION PROCESS: THE ERA OF ENDLESS REFORM (1972-present • Front-loading continued • Dates on which winning candidates clinched nominations • 1972 Democrat July 11th (during convention) • 1976 Democrat June 24th, Republican August 16th (during convention) • 1980 Democrat June 3rd, Republican May 24th • 1984 Democrat June 6th • 1988 Democrat June 7th, Republican April 26th • 1992 Democrat June 2nd, Republican May 5th • 1996 Republican March 26th • 2000 Democrat and Republican, March 14 • 2004 Democrat March 13 • 2008 Democrat June 3, Republican March 5th

  11. NOMINATION PROCESS: THE ERA OF ENDLESS REFORM (1972-present) • Possible Effects of Frontloading • 1.) Quality and quantity of voter information bad • 2.) Candidates forced to drop out before becoming known • 3.) “Invisible primary” and media interpretation more important • 4.) Multiple races on each day means “tarmac” campaigning • 5.) Locking in early front runner • 6.) Long interregnum period • --bad news for candidates dependent on Federal funds

  12. PROPOSED REFORMS TO NOMINATION PROCESS • COMPREHENSIVE • 1.) National primary • 2.) Regional primary • 3.) Delaware plan (small states first) • 4.) Reversing order of convention, primaries

  13. GENERAL ELECTION:Criticisms of Electoral College • 1.) The “faithless elector” problem • 2.) The “wrong winner” problem--- • Happened only in 1824, 1888, and 2000(1876 was a different story) • 3.) Distorts candidate decisions of where and how to campaign • Following 18 states got no visits from pres. Candidates in 2000: • WY, AK, VT, ND, SD, MT, RI, ID, HI, NE, UT, KS, MS, OK, CT, CO, SC, VA • Following 10 states got double-digit visits from pres. Candidates: • IA, TN, WI, MO, MI, OH, IL, PA, FL, CA • NY only got 7, GA only 6, TX only 3

  14. GENERAL ELECTION: C Criticisms of EC continued • 4.) The turnout problem (may affect other races?) • 5.) The discouraging third party problem (related to the negative campaigning problem and the narrow ideology problem)

  15. ELECTORAL COLLEGE: Alternatives? • 1.) Eliminate winner take all---congressional district plan • ---proportional plan • 2.) Direct election • ---how to determine winner? • ---plurality? Runoff? Instant runoff?

  16. TRANSITIONS • Arguments for and against bringing campaign veterans into governing teamFOR: passion, loyalty, intimate knowledge of new pres., sense of public mandateAGAINST: combat mentality, arrogance, distance from DC, lack of technical expertise

  17. TRANSITIONS • What will need to be done first1.) Appointments to WHO, EOP, and Cabinet2.) Get them confirmed3.) Own budget for new FY4.) Joint session speech/proposals5.) National security handoff

  18. TRANSITIONS • Collective wisdom from transition veterans:1.) Fill WH staff first, even though media likes Cabinet better2.) Don’t commit to staff cuts3.) Even though anything can happen, set 1st year priorities and focus appts. Accordingly • 4.) The dangers of “friendly” transitions5.) Listen to the outgoing folks, even though you think they hate you and they’re stupid!