HomeBriefings – Foreign Press Centers...Election Briefing Series: How Candidates Are Selected

# 									Election Briefing Series: How Candidates Are Selected							

FPC Briefing

Dr. Bridgett King, the University of Kentucky’s Department of Political Science

Tuesday, February 20, 2023, 9:30am ET

Washington, D.C.

February 20, 2024

## 								Summary							

        -  
Contrary to many countries where voting is organized at the national level, in the American federalist system our elections processes are a state (and sub-state) competency. States, counties, and other localities have various mechanics for casting, counting, and certifying votes. In this briefing, Dr. King explains how the federalist system structures the administration of elections and the state-driven processes by which American voters select candidates for general elections, whether it is a primary or a caucus. She highlights how our primary calendars are set, how delegates are awarded through theseinitialvotes for later nominating conventions, and why our system has evolved into this unique locally driven effort with national impact.

 
 

**THE WASHINGTON FOREIGN PRESS CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C.**

**MODERATOR:**  Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the Washington Foreign Press Center’s first election-related briefing for this current election cycle.  My name is Jake Goshert and I’m the moderator for this briefing this morning.

As a reminder for the journalists joining us today, the briefing is on the record.  We will post a transcript and video of this briefing on our website at fpc.state.gov.  Again, that’s fpc.state.gov.  For our journalists who are joining us on Zoom, please take a moment now to rename yourself on Zoom with your name, your outlet, your country, so we know who is able to join us.

Our distinguished briefer today is Dr. Bridgett King, the University of Kentucky’s Department of Political Science.  Before Dr. King’s opening remarks, one quick reminder:  She is an independent subject matter expert, and the views expressed by briefers such as Dr. King, who are not affiliated with the Department of State, are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the department or the U.S. Government.  Their participation in Foreign Press Center programming does not imply endorsement, approval, or recommendation of their views.

And with that, I’m going to turn it over to Dr. King for her opening remarks.  Dr. King.

**MS KING:**  Thank you so much.  So first I just want to thank the Department of State for having me and giving me this opportunity to share a little bit about our elections and candidate selection process in the United States.  It is a very big year for those of us who study elections, and I’m very happy to be able to share a little bit of what I am passionate about as an academic and a researcher with all of you today.

In that vein, I have prepared a little presentation to accompany my remarks, because I love a visual aid, and also it means if you don’t want to stare at me, you don’t have to.

Okay.  All right.  Can everyone see the slides?  Yes?  Wonderful.

Okay.  So first what I wanted to do was just talk a little bit about the structure of elections in the United States generally.  So the United States is – has a federalist governance structure, which effectively means – and I tried to depict here on this figure – that you have voters, the little orange people, who in turn participate in elections and select individuals to represent them.  It also means, though, that powers are divided between central and regional governments – the central government being our federal government, and the regional governments being the state.  Importantly to note that neither one is dependent on the other for power.

But what that means then is that we have a system, particularly when it comes to elections, where there is a lot of variation not only between states but also within states.  And so while we often think about this variation as it relates to how a voter might register or how they might cast a ballot, it also impacts the processes that lend themselves to how we eventually end up with a presidential nominee from two – the two – our two major political parties.

And so just – I feel like everyone’s aware, but – so we do not have a centralized electoral management body.  And so within the 50 states, the rules and structures are very different.  But then if we look at the lowest level of government, so the local level, there’s also 10,000-plus local jurisdictions who are also engaged in processes related to elections and democratic governance.

And so what that creates is a system where you have varying interests – sometimes competing, oftentimes collaborating – to facilitate elections and democracy in the United States.  And this figure, it’s not exhaustive, but it’s just to represent some of the different organizations who contribute to and/or who have vested interest in elections and democracy.  So at the top you have voters, but also political parties.  Each state, as I’ll talk about shortly, has a chief election official.  There are local-level election administrators, also advocacy organizations.  We can also think about elected politicians who have a vested interest.  There’s traditional media and social media, so all of you.  We also have federal agencies like the Election Assistance Commission, which is not an electoral management body.  And then we also have voting technology vendors who supply resources to facilitate the ability of individuals to register, data management, cast a ballot, et cetera.

And so at the state level, if we consider this variation, the Help America Act – Help America Vote Act, excuse me – required that each state identify an individual or group of individuals who would be that state’s chief election official.  And so again, because we are in this federalist system, there’s great variation with respect to who is in charge at the state level, but also who is in charge at the local level.

And so in 33 states, voters elect the chief election official, and in most of those states it is the secretary of state.  In six states, the governor appoints a chief election official.  In four states, the chief election official is selected by the legislature.  In seven states, the chief election official is appointed by the state board of elections.  And in 17 states, there is a board or commission that oversees elections in the state or in local jurisdictions.  So again, there’s variation not only in the structure, but also the pathways or mechanisms that facilitate someone being the chief election official in a state.

At the local level, like I mentioned previously, there is also considerable variation.  So in the vast majority of states, what we tend to see is elections fall into the purview or responsibility of a single individual or single office.  There are also local jurisdictions where elections are the responsibility of a board or commission.  And then there are others that engage in some combination, whether it’s shared between two or more entities, so two or more individuals, or their board responsibilities and individuals responsibilities.  But typically the division is along the lines of sort of voter registration, and then all of the other things that have to happen to facilitate an election in the United States.

Here are just some examples of what these divided duties might look like in three states.  So this is Alabama.  So in the state of Alabama, elections fall under the purview of the board of registrars, the clerk of courts, the probate judge, and the sheriff.  Here’s another example; this is New Hampshire.  So in New Hampshire, elections fall under the purview of the moderator, the town or city clerk, and there’s also a superintendent of checklist or – in towns, and then a board of registrars in cities.  And then lastly, here is an example in Arizona, where you have an elected county reporter, and then an appointed or hired director or administrator for elections.  And so this is just to show you some of the variation in the administrative structure that exists with respect to elections.

Not surprisingly, there is also variation in the technology that voters have access to when going to cast a ballot or register to vote.  So this is a little old, but this is a map that breaks down at the county level or local level the type of voter registration documentation or poll books that are available when a voter goes to vote in person.  And so you can see there’s great variation.  There is both paper poll books – so just like you would imagine; a book with voters’ names in it – and then also the expansive use of e-poll books, or digital poll books, which are often very much like an iPad, where a voter can scan their ID and you can confirm their registration.

There is also great variation in voting equipment at the local level.  And so moving in to the 2024 election – well, I guess we’re already here, actually, technically.  So about 69 or 69.2 percent of registered voters will cast their selections on handmarked paper ballots, about 25.7 will use a ballot marking device, and about 5.1 percent of voters will use a direct reporting electronic voting system.

And so just like there are variations in structure and also variations in technology, we also see variations in sort of the way people access voting.  And here are just a couple examples.  One is voter registration deadlines.  The number in parentheses are the states – this does not include the U.S. territories – that have voter registration deadlines.  But you see the deadlines, so the time by which a voter must register – a new voter, that is – ranges from 30 days all the way to no voter registration, which only exists in one state.

If we look at same-day registration, a policy that allows a voter to cast a ballot and register on the same day, you can see there’s also variation across the United States, although there do seem to be some sort of geographic patterns.  But again, the idea is just to lean in, I guess, to this notion that if there is a characteristic of voting and registration and the primary process, which I’ll talk about shortly, in the United States, that theme is difference.

Here is another example.  There’s also varying deadlines for technically when a election is over.  So when the results have been certified.  So you can see there – on this map, there is considerable variation where local elections officials or the state has up to 33 days plus, if we look at California for example, and then some states, like the one I currently am in, Kentucky, where they have up to three days to certify and finalize the election.

And so you can think with all of this variation or difference it can create a certain level of confusion for voters or anyone who is sharing information about elections in the U.S. context.  And so that’s particularly why it is important to not generalize sort of the assertions that you’re making but make sure they accurately reflect the environment in which you’re specifically speaking about.  Because how we experience voting in Kentucky, where I am, is very different than how someone in the state immediately below us, Tennessee, would experience elections.  And it’s also possible there are variations within the state with respect to what voters experience.

So now on to primaries and caucuses.  So primaries are statewide elections where voters select a party’s nominee, and caucuses are a system of local gathering that typically occur at a set time and can last for several days.  Now, an important thing to note about both primaries and caucuses is that in the United States, when a voter participates in a primary or a caucus, they aren’t directly selecting candidates from either of the two major parties to advance to the General Election.  Instead, what voters are actually selecting are delegates to in turn choose the nominees at the party’s national convention.  Those nominees who are confirmed or selected at each party’s national convention will in turn be on the General Election ballot in November.  And generally speaking, the larger or more populous a state is, the more delegates they will send to the national convention.

It’s also worth noting that similar to the way that states and, to a lesser extent, local jurisdictions set the rules for voting and registration with a few federal policies that do guide their decision making, parties set the rules for primaries and caucuses.  And so when we think about primaries specifically, there are different versions – sorry, I went too far – there are different versions or approaches to primaries in the way that voters are able to select delegates.

So the first is an open primary.  And generally, an open primary is one in which a voter in a specific state does not have to choose their political party on their voter registration form, but in effect can opt to vote in either primary when they show up to vote at their polling location during their primary.

A closed primary system, on the other hand, only allows individuals who are registered with the specific political party to vote in that party’s primary.  So if you’re in a state and both the Republican and Democratic primary are closed, only registered Democrats can participate in the Democratic primary and only registered Republicans can participate in the Republican primary.

And because we like to keep things interesting, there are also hybrid primaries that are in effect closed to certain individuals or open to some individuals.  And if anyone has questions about this, I can go into it in more detail.  But as an example, if a state – in a state, if there is an option for a voter to be unaffiliated, so to not provide a party affiliation on their voter registration, either primary – Republican or Democrat – may be open to them in the primary, during the primary election.  And so at the end of the day, it’s sad to say – or not sad to say – it just kind of depends on what the rules are for the state and how the rules have been set up by the party.

Now, as I mentioned, each of our two major political parties, but also third parties, have a party convention, and that is when the political parties assemble every four years to effectively vote and decide who their party’s nominee will be for president in the General Election.  Now, one thing that is important to note is citizens being able to participate in primaries – or caucuses for that matter – and directly contribute to who the nominee from either of the major parties will be is a reasonably relatively new development; specifically in 1965.  But it’s still important to note that even though citizens are able to influence sort of who the nominee might be, parties are private organizations that make their own rules about the nomination process and how it will work at the convention.  And so I’ve also provided the dates for both the RNC and the DNC convention.

So keeping with our theme of difference, there are also different types of delegates, because of course there are.  And so each state, as I mentioned, is allotted a certain number of delegates who vote at the party’s convention.  And typically, the more populous the state, the more delegates you have.  And so there are fundamentally – excuse me – two types of delegates.  We have pledged delegates that are chosen at the state and local level, and those individuals are required to cast a vote at the convention based on the results of the primary or caucus in their state; and then you also have unpledged delegates, and those are delegates who are able to vote for whichever candidate, in effect, that they want to at the party’s convention.

And so going in to the – our two major party conventions later this summer, here is sort of what the distribution of delegates will look like.  So on the Republican side, there are 2,429 total delegates.  Of those, 2,328 are pledged and 104 are unpledged.  And to secure the nomination, the – a candidate will need 1,215 delegates.  On the Democratic Party side, there are 4,672 total delegates.  Of those, about 3,900 are pledged and 739 are automatic or unpledged – these are also the delegates we call superdelegates.  And the nominee needs to secure 1,968 pledged delegates in order to secure nomination for the Democratic Party.

Because I love a map, here is a map that lays out the distribution of delegates for the Republican Party for up to 2024.  And so the darker the red of the state, the more total delegates that state is estimated or predicted to have going into the convention later this summer.  Here is a similar map with the Democratic Party delegates.  Again, the darker the blue in this case, the more delegates that state has to send to the convention.

Two more slides and then I’ll be done.  So even though we have this idea of delegates, the way they are allocated across the two major party conventions is not the same, and it varies across the states.  So some states use a proportional system, where candidates or delegates are allocated at the same percentage of a state’s votes – a candidate’s vote, excuse me – in the popular election.  So if you got 49 percent of the popular vote, you would get 49 percent of the delegates from that state.

There’s also states that rely on a winner-take-all system, where the winner – the person – the candidate who wins in the primary or caucus of a given state basically wins all of that state’s delegates – excuse me.  And then there are – there is a hybrid sort of delegate distribution system that is used by the RNC, but for the most part the Democratic Party relies on a proportional system, where the proportion of a state’s popular vote in a primary or caucus that you get is the proportion of delegates that you get at the convention.

And then lastly, there is always the possibility for a brokered convention.  And a brokered convention would occur when no candidate of a specific political party has received enough delegates in the primaries or caucus to obtain a majority.  And so what effectively happens is after the first ballot at the party’s convention, a nominee is decided through horse trading and continued voting.

So horse trading is just a complex bargaining or transactions or, for example, political vote trading that might happen at a convention to eventually make its way or for the party, excuse me, to eventually decide on who their particular nominee will be.  And so the last two times we’ve had brokered conventions was Thomas Dewey in 1948 and Adlai – I may be saying his name wrong – Stevenson in 1952.  So brokered conventions do happen, and there are party rules to address them.  But as you can see from those two examples, they are a rarity.

And with that, I will turn it over to you, Jake.  I am done.

**MODERATOR:**  Great.  Thank you, Dr. King.  That was fascinating, and I learned some stuff myself, so hopefully our journalists have found it useful as well.  So we’re going to open it up for questions and answers.  We ask the journalists to keep yourselves muted until you’re called on to ask a question.  If you have a question, please click the “raise hand” icon at the bottom of your screen, and we will call on you.  If called on, please just share your name, media outlet, and country with the – with our guest before asking your question.

And we will move first to Pearl.  Pearl, if you could unmute yourself and ask your question after introducing yourself.

**QUESTION:**  Thank you so much, Jake.  And thank you, Bridgett, for being available.  I’m with Premium Times out of Abuja, Nigeria, and my question to you is just a clarifying one if I can.  You mentioned that there are more than 10 (inaudible) jurisdictions, but that was an approximate number.  What I’d like to find out is how many exactly jurisdictions are there, because that must be a known number, so that data point would be very helpful.

And then just extra sort of contextual information – could you maybe share the historical context that led the United States to this type of diverse election system?  What got us here?  And then maybe how do you define “pledged”?  What do you mean by “pledged”?  This might be not a term or concept familiar to African audiences, so if you could maybe explain in layman’s terms for us.  Thank you.

**MS KING:**  Sure.  So unfortunately, when it comes to voting in elections, how we count jurisdictions sort of depends on the question that you’re asking and answering.  So for example, you will have – sometimes you have – so for example, at the local level, in most states you have a county and within the county you have cities.  So technically, those are two separate local jurisdictions.  But when it comes to elections and we’re counting jurisdictions that way, if the city, for example, contracts the county to run their elections, the city effectively doesn’t have an election management – not an election management body – an election office, et cetera.

So even though they are a local jurisdiction, they aren’t necessarily a jurisdiction for election administration purposes.  So the answer actually sort of depends on the question you’re asking.  If you wanted to know how many cities, townships, and counties there are just generally in the United States, that is something I could actually Google for you.

So according to the census, there are 89,004 local governments in the United States.  Now, just keep in mind, though, local governments is not necessarily the exact same thing as election jurisdictions.  So again, it’s going to matter or depend on what you’re talking about and the specific information you’re trying to provide.

How we got here is a very interesting question.  I am currently teaching, for example, a class called Political Participation and the one thing I regularly tell my students is how we got here is a lot of trial, error, and compromise.  And so when you look back, for example, at elections in early America, it was – it could best be described as chaotic.  There were no rules.  There was a lot of violence, and it was unclear who actually was eligible to participate and who was in charge.

Over time, though, to combat those issues, we moved toward a more formal structure where you have clear geographic boundaries, you have clear administrative structures, you can point to who is in charge.  But again, those decisions exist within this broader umbrella of federalism.  And so because of that, states and local jurisdictions continue to have the freedom and authority to make decisions in terms of who’s in charge, the structure of elections, et cetera, that are supported by or are possibly in the best interest of their voters or the citizens who live within their state.  So the short answer is federalism is why we have a system that is so varied and not very – and not as specific as the voting systems in some other countries.

A pledged delegate is effectively just a delegate who at the convention has to vote according to or based on the results of the primary or caucus in the state that they are representing.

**MODERATOR:**  Okay.  We’ll move down our questions.  The next question I see is from Tom, Tom Minear.  Tom, please unmute yourself and introduce yourself and ask your question.

**QUESTION:**  Hi, Bridgett.  Thanks for doing this.  I’m from News Corp Australia.  I was just wanting to follow up something on the parties’ convention rules.  I know there’s not a heap of precedent for this in the last half a century or so, but can you talk us through how the conventions would work if the candidate with the most delegates dropped out before the convention for some reason?  Does that essentially open the floor to other people to put their hand up, even if they weren’t part of the primary process and didn’t have any delegates to their name by the time the convention started?

**MS KING:**  I’m really glad you asked this question.  So effectively, the answer is yes.  So if, for whatever reason, both candidates or a candidate dropped out and was unable to proceed on to the General Election, leaning into the regular convention process, what would happen is individual delegates would effectively decide who the party’s nominee would be at the convention, on the convention floor.  And so you can imagine that while both political parties have rules that would structure this process, it would be a messy political battle over who would get the delegates that were awarded to any individual candidate in a state, particularly if those candidates are no longer viable.

And like you mentioned, yes, the people who could be put forth as potential nominees for a party wouldn’t even have to be individuals who participated in the party’s primary or their caucuses.  So as an example, inherently you might think that if at some point between now and the convention for some reason President Biden had to drop out, you might inherently think, oh well, obviously Vice President Harris would be a top contender.  And that’s possible, but it isn’t necessarily a guaranteed end result.

And so to your point, though, in a petition to a candidate perhaps making it through the primary and being their party’s presumptive nominee, there are also rules in place so that – to identify a candidate if someone makes it to the convention, is the presumptive nominee, and then for some reason has to leave the race.  So for the Democrats, the Democratic National Committee is empowered to fill a vacancy on the national convention – excuse me, on the national ticket after the convention.  And then for the Republicans, the Republican National Committee could reconvene a convention or select a new candidate itself.

So the two – so the short version is we don’t know what would happen, if I’m being perfectly honest, but the parties do have procedures and rules in place that would allow there to be a candidate potentially at the end of the convention.  The extent to which there is agreement around that individual or party support or voter support might vary, sort of depending on the mechanics in place at the time.  I hope that answers your question.

**QUESTION:**  Thank you.

**MODERATOR:**  Thank you.  And now move to Poland, to – I believe it’s Karol.  If you could unmute yourself and ask – introduce yourself, ask your question, please.

**QUESTION:**  Yeah.  Hi.  My name is Karol Surowka.  I’m from the Polish public radio.  And I wanted to ask:  How open to U.S. citizens is the process of selecting a candidate?  Can anyone who wants to, who has that wish, simply do so?  Or are there limitations?  You mentioned that in some states you have to be registered with a party.  Is that an easy process?  Is that an open process or the opposite?  Thank you.

**MS KING:**  Yeah, sure.  And feel free to chime in if I’m not specifically answering your question the way you intend.  So generally, to declare your party affiliation there is a box that you would check on your voter registration form.  It would be Republican, Democrat, unaffiliated.  If you live in a state that has multiple parties that are registered and viable, you would then select one of those political parties to be a member of.  So in that regard, it’s easy in the sense that you are officially asserting which party you want to be affiliated with on a particular form.

I will also say – and this isn’t in response to your question, but it does matter – the selections people make for party affiliation, in addition to their ability to participate in primaries, particularly in states that have a closed primary, also impact other parts of the electoral process.  So in many states, for example, if you think about the facilities people go to vote in in person, so polling locations, there’s an expectation that there’s partisan balance, so the same number and equal number of Republicans and Democrats predominantly – excuse me.  So beyond thinking about participating in primaries, individual selecting candidates can also impact sort of their ability or where they are positioned to serve as a poll worker should they decide to volunteer to be one on election day or during early voting.

But generally, I would say declaring a political party affiliation is fairly easy.  You can also reregister and change it in most jurisdictions should you decide that you want to switch from one party to the other.

**MODERATOR:**Next, we’ll move to Barbara.  Barbara, if you could unmute yourself and introduce yourself and ask your question, please.

**QUESTION:**Thank you so much for your time, Bridgett.  I was wondering:  Can you tell us a bit more about delegates?  Who are these people?  Are they politically involved always, and how much power do they really hold?

**MS KING:**So just like everything – (laughter) – who are the delegates varies.  So mostly the delegates are selected from – they are engaged and involved individuals at the state party level in their state.  So they’re typically people who are very active, very engaged in politics, but not always.  The superdelegates, which only exist with the Democratic Party, are typically members of Congress, governors, members of the Democratic National Committee.  But you could also have members of the Republican National Committee who are also delegates for the Republicans.  So although there is some variation, they are generally people who are interested, invested, and engaged not only in politics but also sort of the trajectory of their party, very committed to thinking about who the party’s nominee is going to be and sort of what that means not only for the future of their party but also for the future of the country.

**QUESTION:**Thank you.

**MODERATOR:**We’ll next move onto María.  María, if you can unmute yourself, María José – can unmute yourself, turn your camera on, introduce yourself, and ask your question, please?

**QUESTION:**Thank you very much for your time and for this space.  I wanted to ask Bridgett  about the swing states and their importance for the coming primaries and caucuses.  Why are these states so important in the election system in the United States, and taking into account the coming elections in November?  And I’m from Colombia, sorry.  Colombia.

**MS KING:**So swing states are particularly important, on the one hand because they are unknown entities, particularly in the General Election, because they can swing literally one way or the other with respect to our two major parties.  They are also particularly important because of the number of electors that they possess with respect to the Electoral College, and can also swing one way or the other and be the determining factor that sends one candidate to the White House versus another.

Another thing you tend to see in swing states is a lot more efforts to mobilize voters.  There’s oftentimes more media coverage.  Candidates tend to invest more dollars in those states.  And so oftentimes in those states, because they are so important and they do have such a pivotal role to play in sort of what the outcome of the November election is, you oftentimes see turnout higher in those states than you do in others, mobilizing of specific groups in those states at levels that exceed what we see in other states, whether those be young people, people in rural areas, racial and ethnic minorities, et cetera.

So I’m originally from Ohio, which once upon a time was a swing state.  And so I very much remember sort of all of the energy that would happen in the state around the election.  It always felt like someone was always there, a candidate, at the – leading into the general, or a primary candidate leading up into the state’s primary.  And having lived in several states, I can say from my own personal experience that the energy and the investment of the candidates is very different in swing states compared to sort of non-swing states where you can predict the outcome.

**MODERATOR:**Okay.

**QUESTION:**Thank you.

**MODERATOR:**We’ll move onto Lynette.  Lynette, if you can unmute yourself, turn your camera on if you can, introduce yourself, and ask your question.

**QUESTION:**(In progress) very much for the opportunity.  My name is Lynette Manzini.  I’m from Open Parly here in Zimbabwe.  And thank you very much for walking us through this process, the delegates issues.  We are getting informed.  My question is around inclusivity and diversity.  Are there specific measures in place to encourage representation from around various demographic groups within the delegates from the political parties?

**MS KING:**That’s an interesting question, and one no one has ever asked me before.  (Laughter.)  So I’m going to infer an answer sort of based on an observation made about the upcoming primary season.  So if we look at our two major political parties, Republicans and Democrats, if we look at maybe not so much gender but if we look at race and ethnicity, the Democratic Party does tend to have a more diverse not only voter base, but also a more diverse – a broader – a more diverse set of candidates sort of up and down sort of levels of governance in the United States, whether that be local, state, or federal.

I also think if we look at the signals that the Democratic Party in particular sent about wanting to move the – or make South Carolina the first primary as opposed to having the Iowa Caucus first, part of the reason that fueled that decision was because there was an argument to be made that the state of South Carolina more broadly reflects demographically what the Democratic Party actually looks like.

So I cannot say explicitly if there are efforts with respect to either party in terms of actively looking to increase diversity among the delegates, but I can– not assert – but I do think at least on the part of Democrats, in part because of the composition of their of their party, that they do generally tend to have a more diverse base of delegates, because they just have a more diverse racially, ethnically, et cetera political party base and candidate base generally.

**MODERATOR:**Okay, we have some more questions.  Again, as journalists, if you have a question, please click the hand raised icon in the Zoom room.  We have a question from Doris (ph).  Doris, I’m going to ask you to unmute yourself, turn your camera on if you can, introduce yourself, and ask your question.

Doris, can you hear us?  Doris from German radio, are you there?

Okay, well, I guess we’re having some technical issues with Doris.  Again, journalists, if you have any questions, please raise your hand.  And last call for Doris.  Doris, can you unmute yourself?

Okay, I guess we’ll end it there, Dr. King.  I see no other questions.  Do you have any final thoughts or comments you’d like to share with the group before we end the briefing?

**MS KING:**No, I just want to thank you all for attending today and giving you this – giving me – excuse me – this opportunity to share a little bit about not only my personal experience with the American electoral system and primaries and caucuses, but also sort of just broadly some of the structures that surround these sort of very exciting events that are happening in the U.S. this year.  And thank you all for coming.

**MODERATOR:**Thank you so much.  We’ll go ahead and end the briefing there.  Thank you, Dr. King, for joining us.  And thank you to all the journalists for logging in this morning.  Thank you.

Tags

District of ColumbiaElectionsForeign Press CentersForeign Press CentersNew York

Back to Top