Presidential Nominating Process: Current Issues
Released: 2012-02-27T00:00:00

The contemporary nominating system, in which primaries are the dominant feature, grew out of sweeping reforms adopted in the early 1970s. For the preceding 120 years, state delegations to the national party conventions had been largely chosen by party leaders or in closed caucus meetings that vested control in the party hierarchy. Although the primary was introduced by Progressive reformers just after the turn of the 20 th century, it did not replace party control of the process for choosing delegates to the conventions for many decades. Florida was the first state to adopt a version of the primary in 1901, but Wisconsin's 1905 law was the first to provide for the use of the primary in presidential nominations. By 1916, at least 20 states had a presidential primary in some form. However, many states quickly abandoned the method when the Progressive movement faded and the number of primaries dropped in the years following the First World War.

The number of primaries began to increase again after World War II, but they initially had little effect on winning the nomination. Candidates often chose one or more specific state primaries in which to compete to demonstrate their potential electability, but the primary process did not usually determine the selection of delegates and did not threaten party control of the state delegations. In the 1952 Democratic race, for example, Senator Estes Kefauver (TN) prevailed in 12 of the 15 primaries held and captured 64% of the vote nationally, but failed to win the nomination. Instead, the convention chose Governor Adlai Stevenson (IL), who had won 1.6% of the primary vote nationwide.

Pressure to change the nominating system mounted in the turbulent political climate of the 1960s, due to the perception that the process was undemocratic. A transforming event occurred at the Democratic convention in 1968, where violent confrontations between war protesters and the Chicago police outside the convention hall, and bitter credentials disputes inside, spurred Democrats to completely change the party's nominating rules. The new rules transferred the power of choosing delegates from party leaders to rank-and-file voters, opening the process to widespread popular participation for the first time. Many state parties switched to primaries to comply with the newly adopted national party rules. The Republican Party also modified its rules in the early 1970s. Subsequently, as shown in Figure 1 , the number of party primaries in the states rose steadily. Between 1968 and 2000, the number of states with Democratic Party primaries increased from 15 to 40; states with Republican Party primaries increased from 17 to 43, the most since the introduction of the primary. In 2004, Democrats scheduled 38 primaries and Republicans scheduled 32. In 2008, Democrats scheduled 37 primaries and Republicans scheduled 39. This year's nominating season features 32 Democratic primaries and 35 Republican primaries.

Figure 1. Number of State Presidential Primaries, 1912-2008Source: Harold W. Stanley and Richard G. Niemi, Vital Statistics on American Politics, 2007-2008. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2008), p. 70. For 2008, figures are from the National Association of Secretaries of State; 2012 figures are from The Green Papers website, available at http://www.thegreenpapers.com/.

The reforms of the 1970s fundamentally changed the structure of the nominating system and, in turn, led to changes in the dynamics of nomination politics. Under the old system, the drama of choosing the party's candidate occurred at the convention, where party leaders who controlled blocs of delegates would broker the choice of nominee. Reform redirected the suspense of the nomination contest to the states, where presidential candidates sought support directly from voters in primaries and caucuses, with the media highlighting the results. This new dynamic boosted the importance of the earliest events in Iowa and New Hampshire, which eventually set off a trend toward rescheduling in other states in order to better attract candidate and media attention. The front-loading phenomenon has prevailed for more than 20 years, but may have abated somewhat as a result of controversy over the calendar in 2008.

2008 Election

For the first time since 1952, the nomination contest for both parties did not include an incumbent President or Vice President. A crowded field of Republican and Democratic candidates entered the race as a result. Despite a fast-paced primary and caucus calendar that was expected to narrow the field quickly, that was not the case on the Democratic side. Some observers had suggested that an inconclusive primary season would result in a "brokered" convention, whereby the nominee would be chosen at the convention based on dealmaking and bargaining. Speculation about such an outcome focused attention on the "superdelegates," a category of automatic, unpledged delegates who are not required to declare a presidential candidate preference. The last Democratic nomination contest to feature a questionable convention outcome was in 1980, before the creation of the superdelegate category.

The 1984 Democratic convention was the first to include superdelegates, who were added in response to rule changes that had sharply reduced the influence of party leaders and Democratic office holders on the nominating process (see preceding section of this report). Following President Carter's defeat in 1980, the party added superdelegates as a counterbalance to the influence of rank-and-file voters. The superdelegates were introduced to promote party cohesion and to rally support for future nominees among party professionals and Democrats in Congress. It was believed that party leaders and elected officials, given their own political experience and knowledge, could also help with evaluating and selecting nominees. Initially, the superdelegates were approximately 14% of all convention delegates; they accounted for 20% of those who attended the 2008 convention.

The following categories comprised the superdelegates:

all members of the Democratic National Committee; all Democratic Members of the U.S. House and Senate; Democratic governors; distinguished party leaders (including former Presidents, Vice Presidents, and congressional leaders); and an additional number of delegates (one for every four members of the Democratic National Committee from the state), called "add-on" delegates.

Because Democrats assign pledged delegates in primaries and caucuses proportionally according to voters' presidential candidate or uncommitted preferences (with a 15% threshold), the importance of the superdelegates increases according to the closeness of the race.

Democrats have revised the rules concerning superdelegates for 2012 to eliminate the "add-on" category and to require an expression of presidential candidate preference from delegates in other categories (discussed in greater detail in the section below).

Calendar Changes, 1988-2008

Most of the changes to the calendar over the last two decades resulted from state legislatures and state parties scheduling earlier primary or caucus events, either individually or as part of a collective effort within a single region of the country. In the 1970s, attempts to organize regional primary events in New England, the Midwest, and the Pacific Northwest were unsuccessful. But in 1988, a March regional primary was successfully organized in 14 southern states. This southern "Super Tuesday" regional primary, however, failed to bolster the region's political strength in the nominating process, and by 1996 seven states had abandoned the event. None of the changes displaced Iowa and New Hampshire from their prominent roles as the first caucus and primary, respectively, but they have further contributed to a perception that the system is confusing and unorganized.

The 2000 calendar was the most front-loaded ever with respect to the number of delegates at stake, but not with respect to the number of primaries. California moved its primary from the last Tuesday to the first Tuesday of March, and New York also advanced its primary by two days to the same date (March 7). Ohio also moved up its primary to the first Tuesday in March, resulting in a crowded schedule of 16 primaries and caucuses that spanned the country and vastly increased the number of delegates to be selected. With the addition of California, New York, and Ohio on March 7, between 70% and 80% of the delegates needed to claim the nomination in either party were allocated as a result of voting on that date. As it happened, the contest for the nomination on both sides was declared over in the press by March 7, by which time voters in fewer than half the states had cast ballots.

National party changes after the 2000 election led to an earlier start in 2004, the most front-loaded calendar to date in terms of the number of primaries. A Republican task force approved a plan to set dates for primaries and caucuses—a first for a party that traditionally has deferred to the states on such matters. The change required approval at the national convention in August 2004 (and would have gone into effect for 2008). Known as the Delaware Plan, it would have created a four-month calendar, with the smallest states voting first, in February, followed by a group of larger states in March, with the largest states voting last in May. The plan was approved by the RNC rules committee and would have gone to the whole convention for approval, had not the convention rules committee voted the plan down. Meanwhile, Democrats approved allowing states to hold contests on the first Tuesday in February, a month earlier than in 2000, with an exception for Iowa and New Hampshire.

In 2006, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) again revised its rules for the 2008 primary schedule, creating a calendar with the earliest start and the most front-loaded ever; 23 states held contests on February 5, the opening date for the window. With the approval of two new exceptions to the DNC rule for holding primaries and caucuses during the specified "window," the Nevada caucus was scheduled for January 19, five days after the Iowa caucus, followed by the New Hampshire primary on January 22, with the South Carolina (and Florida) primary a week later. Because Florida (January 29) and Michigan (January 15) were not among the states granted an exception to the timing rule, the Democratic national party announced that the Florida and Michigan delegations would not be seated at the 2008 convention if the respective primary results were used to determine the selection of delegates. Because the Florida and Michigan Democratic Parties relied on the January primary results to apportion delegates, the national Democratic Party on May 31, 2008, reduced the vote of both delegations by 50%, with each delegate having a half vote. The decision by the Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee was controversial, as it used a combination of the primary results, exit polls, and uncounted write-in ballots to award 34.5 delegate votes to the Clinton campaign and 29.5 delegate votes to the Obama campaign (reflecting the 50% reduction in the total delegate vote). The Clinton campaign had advocated for a 73 to 55 split, based on the primary results. In the end, the Credentials Committee of the Democratic National Convention restored full voting rights for the Michigan and Florida delegations the day before the convention began.

National Party Rules Changes for 2012

Republicans began evaluating the performance of the nominating process even before the primaries and caucuses had concluded in 2008, and Democrats followed once the primary season ended. The Republican party's rules committee approved a plan that would impose a new system for choosing national convention delegates, known as the Ohio Plan, for the 2012 election. Under the plan, Iowa and New Hampshire could vote during the first week of February, followed by South Carolina and Nevada any time after New Hampshire. Beginning the third week of February, small states, the territories, and Puerto Rico could begin voting, followed by separate groups of larger states on three successive dates. The order of the larger state groupings would rotate every four years. To be adopted for 2012, the plan needed to be approved by the Republican National Committee, the rules committee of the national convention, and the convention itself. According to press reports, Republicans planned to seek the cooperation of Democrats in putting the plan into place in the states, as they did prior to the 2000 election, but the effort stalled before the convention began. The convention did create the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee to review delegate selection procedures and make recommendations to the Republican National Committee (RNC). A two-thirds majority of the full committee was necessary to adopt any changes to the rules. Subsequently, the RNC approved at its 2010 summer meeting a window for holding delegate selection events that is similar to the Democratic Party's rule on the timing of delegate selection events. As the result of a revision to Rule 15 of The Rules of the Republican Party , delegate selection events cannot be held before the first Tuesday in March, with an exception for Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, which can hold their events on or after February 1 (regardless, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina scheduled January events for 2012). The change imposes a timing rule for the first time ever for Republican delegate selection events, although it would not apply if Democrats fail to adhere to the same schedule. A related change to Rule 15 requires states that hold contests before April 1 to allocate delegates on a proportional basis, but it does not impose a specific proportional system. The party did not previously require the use of a specific allocation method, and the new requirement seems intended to further decompress the calendar by delaying the use of a winner-take-all system until April. Many state parties used winner-take-all in the past. In guidance that was provided to the state parties, the RNC counsel's office outlined a number of ways to implement proportional allocation. The requirement to award delegates proportionally applies in general, but the guidance leaves open the possibility that district level delegates could be awarded on a winner-take-all basis, with only the at-large delegates awarded on a proportional basis. The four states that are exempt from the timing rule are also exempt from this requirement.

The goal of the adopted changes was to achieve a later start than in 2008, when the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary were held during the first week in January, and to relieve some of the front-loading of the calendar. By pushing the earliest contests into February and imposing a March starting date for other states—along with a requirement to award at least some delegates on a proportional basis—it was hoped that the front-loading that characterized 2008 would be relieved. To that end, the effort was successful. An internal RNC memo about the changes noted that "the authority [granted by the 2008 convention] allowed the RNC to work with the Democratic Party for the first time in developing a consensus presidential nominating schedule that attempts to avoid a national primary." Furthermore, a more prolonged contest that features events in different parts of the country could be beneficial to the party as its rank-and-file voters evaluate the candidate field in an open contest. Because the new rules may delay most winner-take-all events until April, a more deliberative process may occur. Individual state party rules for allocating delegates could also contribute to a protracted contest, as in recent contests in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri where no delegates were awarded based on the results.

Democrats established the Democratic Change Commission (DCC) as the result of a resolution passed in August 2008 at the convention. The DCC was charged with making recommendations to improve the process with respect to the timing of primaries and caucuses, the number of unpledged delegates (the superdelegates), and state party efforts to plan and implement the caucus process.

On the issue of timing, the DCC recommended that the 2012 window begin on the first Tuesday in March and the pre-window begin on February 1, and that regional clusters of primaries be encouraged, but not required. For example, the "Potomac Primaries" in 2008 featured simultaneous contests in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia on February 12. The recommendation would encourage similar voluntary, regional events. It would seem that the perceived benefits of a later calendar start and encouraging regional, staggered events are that they will address a general complaint that the current process starts too early, that it encourages front-loading, and that a sequential, more orderly calendar gives voters a better chance to evaluate the candidates. As the 2008 primary season demonstrated, the protracted contest seemed to energize the party's base, and the nominee was successful in the general election after having been tested in primaries in different parts of the country. The party accepted the recommendation to start the 2012 process on the first Tuesday in March and stipulated that the pre-window would begin 29 days earlier with the Iowa caucuses. With an incumbent President running for reelection, the approved calendar is unlikely to be important for this election cycle.

Because of the inconclusiveness of the Democratic contest until nearly the end in 2008, some observers began to suggest that it could result in a "brokered" convention, whereby the nominee would be chosen at the convention based on deal making and bargaining. Speculation about such an outcome focused attention on the "superdelegates," the category of automatic, unpledged delegates who are not required to declare a presidential candidate preference (which includes all DNC members, Democratic Members of Congress, Democratic governors, and distinguished former party leaders). Superdelegates had played a prominent role in determining the nominee only once before, in 1984, and they were critical in determining the outcome in 2008. The total number of delegates in 2008 was 4,234 (including 796 superdelegates, who were 19% of the total), and the number needed for nomination was 2,118. The DCC recommended that one category of superdelegates be eliminated—the "add-on" bonus delegates—and that DNC members, Members of Congress, governors, and former party officials should be required to declare a candidate preference, rather than being designated automatically as unpledged delegates. The recommendation was intended to "give weight to primary voters' and caucus participants' preferences." Ultimately, the DNC did eliminate the unpledged add-on delegates and kept intact other superdelegate categories (Members of Congress, DNC members, governors, and former party and election officials), who are required to declare a presidential candidate or uncommitted preference within 10 days of completion of their state's delegate selection process.

The final recommendation addressed a number of caucus-related issues from 2008: (1) complaints that the caucus process is unfair to students, the elderly, shift workers, and members of the military who may not have the time or ability to attend an event that lasts several hours and for which there is no absentee voting; (2) states that recently switched to a caucus process because state funding for a primary was not available were, at times, challenged to run a complicated, multi-tiered event and could benefit from peer input; and (3) adequate preparation is critical to ensure a smooth process, including site selection, participant education, and results reporting. The party plans to assist state parties by drafting "best practices" guidance with respect to the caucus process.

After some delay and jockeying among certain states, the calendar for 2012 was set by the beginning of November 2011. Florida's decision to hold a January 31 primary introduced a month-long scramble among the four states that are exempt from the timing "window" that the states impose. Florida (along with Michigan) introduced uncertainty in the calendar in 2008 and did so again, briefly, with respect to the 2012 calendar. On September 30, the Florida primary committee that was authorized to set the date announced that the primary would be held on January 31, 2012. Republican state committees were required to adopt and submit their delegate selection plans to the RNC by the following day, October 1. Republican rules permit Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada to begin on or after February 1, but the Florida move introduced uncertainty over what Iowa and New Hampshire would do with respect to primary and caucus dates. The Iowa caucuses were scheduled for January 3. The New Hampshire secretary of state subsequently released a statement on October 12, 2011, announcing that the primary could be held on January 7, or it could be moved up to December 6 or 13, depending on what Iowa and Nevada did. On October 22, 2011, Nevada Republicans approved a plan to hold caucuses on February 4, yielding to pressure from New Hampshire. The Nevada delegation will also be compensated at the convention with better floor and hotel accommodations for making the change. On November 2, 2011, New Hampshire Secretary of State William M. Gardner announced that the state's primary would be held on January 10. Republican rules specify that Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada may not hold contests prior to February 1 of the election year.

The Iowa caucuses are the first event of the nominating season, and New Hampshire holds the first primary. New Hampshire state law gives the secretary of state the power to change the date of the primary so that it precedes any similar contest by seven days. Just days after Florida's announcement, South Carolina Republicans announced that the party would hold its primary on January 21, and Nevada Republicans announced on October 5, 2011, that party caucuses would be held on January 14. Democratic rules are more specific regarding when these states may schedule events: Iowa on February 6, New Hampshire on the 14 th , Nevada on the 18 th , and South Carolina on the 28 th . The Arizona primary was set for February 28, ending speculation that the governor would set an even earlier date, but that action may have prompted Florida's decision to move to January 31, which, in turn, set off the scramble among the earliest states. The calendar is likely to be consequential only on the Republican side with an incumbent Democrat in the White House. There has been speculation that the more sequential calendar and new allocation rule could prolong the contest for the Republican nomination, now that the field has been narrowed, or could even encourage a new candidate or candidates to join the race. Although the nominating season remains a contest to amass delegates—and no candidate can secure a majority of delegates until April —the popular results from upcoming contests on February 28 and March 6 will likely determine whether the contest continues into mid-March and beyond. By the end of February, 11 events will have been held and several of those did not strictly determine how the delegates will be awarded, including the Colorado and Minnesota caucuses, and the Michigan non-binding primary.

One notable trend for 2012 is the number of states that have moved to a later date on the calendar while only a few moved up. Even with the same starting date as in 2008, the calendar is less front-loaded than it was in that year. A number of states moved to a later date than in 2008; at least 13 that held primaries on February 5, 2008, scheduled 2012 primaries in March, April, May, or June. February 5 was the official start date in 2008 according to the Democrats' timing rule (Republicans didn't have such a rule in 2008). For example, California and New Jersey moved their primaries to June 5; the Connecticut, Delaware, and New York primaries are scheduled for April 24; the Alabama and Illinois primaries are scheduled in mid- to late March; and Utah cancelled its primary. Georgia moved its primary to March 6 for the 2012 election cycle. In other state action, Wisconsin moved its primary from February to early April and Washington cancelled its primary altogether. The unprecedented cooperation between the two national parties to encourage a less compressed schedule of events was the likely catalyst, but other factors may have reinforced these actions. In an era of budgetary austerity, states were forced to consider balancing the possible additional cost of an early, separate presidential primary against the goal of attracting candidate and media attention by being earlier. An early date does not even guarantee, however, that a state will be the focus of media and candidate attention if it shares the date with other states or a state judged to be more important trumps the media coverage. As a result, it is possible that 2008 represented the high point for front-loading, as a more measured and orderly calendar is in place for 2012. Whether the changes adopted for this cycle are retained will depend on how the parties view the nominating contest once it has concluded. With more at stake in this primary season, Republicans could decide to adjust the nominating rules at the convention or later, as the party did for 2012. Democrats may be less likely to do so. In any case, the precedent is well established: Democrats have changed the rules between presidential elections many times in the past, while Republicans now have their own precedent for experimenting with rules changes between elections.

Evaluating the Primary System

Most state primaries were adopted following rules changes of the early 1970s to reform the arguably undemocratic process used to select nominees. However, other complaints about the system continue to arise. In addition to front-loading, complaints include low levels of participation, the predominance of Iowa and New Hampshire, dissatisfaction with the field of candidates who enter the race, the length of the season (either too short or too long), the role of the media, and confusion about the complex rules that govern the process. Some of these perceived problems stem from the design of the nominating system, such as calendar length, which has been recently addressed jointly by the national parties because such cooperation seems mutually beneficial at present. But some complaints, about low turnout, for example, apply to elections generally, and it is unlikely that nominating reforms would resolve such a fundamental problem. Also, the role of the media and the field of candidates who choose to run are a third category of complaints that stem more from the current political culture than from electoral structure. Changes to the nominating system, even a wholly new method of choosing party candidates, would arguably do little to diminish these and other non-structural complaints.

Despite long-standing complaints, the existing primary system routinely accomplishes its fundamental task—the selection of general election candidates according to the voting results in the states and territories or insular areas. The system is indirect, relying on elected delegates rather than the popular vote to determine the nominees. However, it differs markedly from the system of years past, when party leaders dominated the process. Because a majority of delegates is required for nomination, rank-and-file voters are usually willing to rally around the candidate chosen at the convention, even in years marked by internal party division. Finally, since the reforms of the 1970s, presidential elections have been marked by strong two-party competition for the presidency—Republican nominees have won six general elections and the Democrats have won four in generally close elections. With a few notable exceptions, the primary system has produced generally competitive candidates for the fall election. To be successful, any new system would need to retain the link between popular participation and candidate choice, and also address at least some of the problems attributed to the primary system. As long as the major parties continue to win the presidency, however, one party or the other is likely to have a vested interest in preserving the process that produced a victorious general election candidate.

Reform Proposals

Most reform proposals, including those introduced in Congress over the past 50 years, can be grouped in three categories according to the overall design of the resulting system: a national primary, regional primaries, and those that would establish a "window" for holding contests. A national primary, the most far-reaching plan, would resemble the general election, with participants selecting nominees on a single day. Regional primary plans and standardizing proposals would require less change, but they would take different approaches. Most regional primary proposals would set specific, staggered dates for holding events. More recent regional proposals are those that would group states by geographic region, by time zone, or by population (the Delaware Plan and Ohio Plans, for example, as discussed previously on pages 4 and 5, respectively). The National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) endorsed a regional primary proposal on February 12, 1999. Under the NASS plan, Iowa and New Hampshire "would retain their leading positions in the presidential selection process based on past tradition," to be followed by regional primaries in the East, South, Midwest, and West during March, April, May, and June. The regional order would rotate every four years. A window plan sets a time frame for selecting delegates but leaves the specific choice of date and method—either a primary or caucus—to the states or state parties. The changes adopted by the Democratic and Republican National Committees for 2012 use this reform model.

Legislative Considerations

No bills have been introduced in the 112 th Congress to alter the presidential nominating process. In the 111 th Congress, S. 1433 (Senator Nelson of Florida) would have established an inter-regional system for holding primaries and caucuses on six dates, between the second Tuesday in March and the second Tuesday in June. The states would have been divided first into regions, and again into sub-regions. One sub-region would have been selected from each region to hold events on the same date and the order of sub-region groupings would have rotated every four years.

Several bills were introduced in the 110 th Congress to provide for an interregional system of presidential primaries and caucuses (one state from each region), or a regional system of primaries and caucuses. S. 1905 and H.R. 3487 would have established four regions and a series of dates for holding primaries and caucuses, but would have provided an exception for Iowa and New Hampshire. S. 2024 and H.R. 1523 would have included all caucuses and primaries in an interregional plan for holding the events. The Senate Rules Committee held a hearing on S. 1905 on September 19, 2007.

Although Congress has authority to regulate the timing of congressional and presidential elections, arguably including presidential primaries, some observers maintain that congressional efforts to prescribe the methods of choosing national convention delegates may be restricted by the parties' constitutional rights of free association. For nearly two centuries, the parties have determined their methods of choosing nominees without federal oversight and might resist a system imposed by Congress. Also, legislative action may not achieve the expected results. Were Congress to establish regional primaries or a national primary, for example, state parties whose interests were not served by the new system might switch to the caucus method in an effort to circumvent Congress. Alternately, a federally designed system might succeed in imposing order on a complex and controversial system.

A federally mandated calendar for primaries might be resisted for a variety of other reasons. First, elections are expensive, and states often hold their presidential primary together with their state primary to save money. Second, some states schedule primaries to accommodate state legislative sessions or to meet other scheduling needs. Third, some states have a traditional primary date that determines the election cycle for candidates at all levels of government. A federally mandated primary date, which might be subject to change every four years, could create ongoing scheduling problems in states that hold a single, combined primary.

Complaints about the nominating system usually peak just after the election season has concluded, when observers assess how well the system functioned. In this climate, proposed changes tend to address the perceived problems recently encountered. The long-term implications of such adjustments often receive less debate. Notably, a victory in the general election often tempers the views of party activists who criticized the process in the spring and summer.

Revision and experimentation with the presidential nominating system continues, building upon the reforms of the 1970s. This continual revision, which sometimes causes confusion, nonetheless demonstrates the flexibility of the system and, at least in theory, promises a result that stems from competition and evolution. It is an open question, however, whether a new system could better accomplish the task of selecting candidates who are the choice of most party voters. Even more in doubt is the extent to which such changes would alleviate broader complaints about the presidential nominating process—low turnout, the negative perception of the media's role in the process, the influence of organized interest groups and ideological voters, the high cost of campaigns, and the reluctance of some potential candidates to enter the contest.