In just over two months the first actual votes will be cast in the process of selecting the presidential candidates for the 2012 election. On the Democratic side, the only credible candidate is the incumbent president - Barack Obama. There is, at present, no real challenge to his claim on the Democratic ticket for another term as president. The Republican Party side, on the other hand is quite different, with nine announced candidates.
How does this process work? What will actually happen over the course of the next several months up to the Republican Convention - where the only "action" is likely to be - in the summer of 2012?
So far, we have seen a multitude of debates and straw polls, as well as discussion about who can out fund raise the others. We have had speculation about Sarah Palin and Chris Christie entering the race, only to have both of them bow out and we've seen the withdrawal of former governor Tim Pawlenty. Yet, not a single actual vote has been cast for anyone. The first contest is scheduled to be the Iowa Precinct Caucuses, first by tradition. The first primary by tradition, and so far by schedule, will be New Hampshire. The dates of these contests are uncertain due to jockeying by other states to be as early as possible.
There are mainly two types of contests that take place prior to each party's nominating convention. Generally speaking, state parties choose, within the bounds of the national parties' rules whether to hold caucuses or primaries (some choose a hybrid combination of the two, as Texas did in 2008). These contests, depending on the rules of the party and/or state law, may be limited to participation by only legally recognized members of that party, they may be open to party members and independent voters, or there may be no restriction on who gets to vote in which contest at all. The purpose of the contests is primarily to select delegates to the national conventions of the two parties. Since no one appears to be contesting Obama for the Democratic nomination, there will likely be no real contests, or limited contests, for delegates to the Democratic National Convention.
Most voters are familiar with how a primary works its appearance is usually much like the familiar general election, including the ballots. In primaries held in non-presidential years, state and local parties determine which candidates get to run on their lines in the general election or elect internal party officers, such as local or state committee members. Caucuses have a much different look and feel. While a primary is likely to last for many hours, just as a general election would, a caucus is usually accomplished in a few hours. Where in a primary, the voter would be entitled to the more familiar "secret ballot," the caucus participant usually will have to make a public declaration of his or her support for a particular presidential candidate and his or her slate of delegates.
A Bit of History
Gone are the days when party leaders - political brokers - would sit in the proverbial backroom (usually smoke-filled) and decide who would lead their party into the general election fight. A minor reform, developed in the Progressive Era of the early 1900s, was among the most significant factors bringing about the demise of the smoke-filled room. During this period of American history, reformers were taking on large business interests - the trusts - and other institutions that limited citizen choice and efficacy, such as political machines. The political machines of this era so dominated the politics of certain cities in the United States, that gaining the blessing of the party bosses in those local smoke-filled rooms was essentially winning the election. This was true because in many of those areas, there was, in effect, no second party and thus no alternative. The direct primary was introduced in a number of states as both a way around this problem, and a recognition of the fact that there should at least be a way to have choice in the dominant party.
As time went by, the direct primary was adapted for use in the selection of delegates to the national nominating conventions, which would, in theory, reduce the influence of the bosses/brokers in determining the nominees of the two major parties. However, the bosses could still exert a great deal of control by picking and supporting slates of delegate candidates loyal to them. Even with the advent of this reform mechanism bosses could still play the broker at conventions. Primaries still served a useful purpose, in that the bosses could suggest to newcomer candidates that they demonstrate their ability to get votes by running in one or more primary contests. This is what, according to Theodore White's history of the 1960 contest occured - several state Party leaders would not support John Kennedy unless he could prove to them that a Catholic candidate could get votes in a predominantly Protestant electorate.
By 1968, it became clear that those who sought a "peace" alternative to Lyndon Johnson, would have to do so by challenging the incumbent president in the more public arena of the primaries than to try to oust him through the Party's bosses. The first to publicly confront Johnson in this manner was Senator Eugene McCarthy (WI), who had a surprisingly strong finish in New Hampshire's primary - through a write in campaign. This showing of strength may have been the prompt Senator Bobby Kenndy (NY) needed to enter the race himself. It was soon after these events that Johnson announced he would "not seek, nor ... accept" the Democratic Party's nomination for another term as president.
It was the ensuing battle between Kennedy and McCarthy, Kennedy's assassination, Vice President Hubert Humphrey's stealth candidacy, and the anti-war protests at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago that all played a part in the Democratic Party's rethinking of its selection process. Many McCarthy and Kennedy supporters were distraught over Humphrey's more traditional path to the nomination, by going through the state party leaders and circumventing the public primary election route. The Convention appointed a commission, initially headed by Senator George McGovern (SD), to revamp the Party rules for the next presidential race in 1972.
These new rules, requiring more diverse delegations from the states, contests held within the same year as the general election, and reduction in the use of so-called "winner take all" primaries, created the foundation of the system used today by both the Democrats and the Republicans. State Democratic parties found that it was easier to use the primary process to comply with much of what the commission required and in many cases the Republicans adopted similar procedures to reduce confusion and complexity (e.g., the holding of separate contests on different days with different rules). Where 1960 was a set of contests used by party leaders to assess vote getting ability, 1968 was seemingly stolen, and the 1972 nominating contest was, for all intents and purposes, over before the convention. Since then most nominating contests, on the both sides of the partisan divide, have been decided well before the respective party convention.
The Rush to be First
It is also true that many states have envied the position of Iowa and New Hampshire as first in the nation constests. In smaller states, in particular, the attention that comes with being early can serve as a great boost to an underperforming economy. The presence of the presidential campaigns, with their attendant needs for staff housing and food, the printing of literature, the buying of ads, all serve to stimulate the local economy. For some states, larger ones for example, the motive is prestige based - that they should have a greater say in who gets to be president than Iowa or New Hampshire. Whatever the motive for moving earlier in the process, 2008 brought great competition and controversy when some states first moved their contests up to the first possible day, resulting in a number of large and small states all holding contests on the same day in early February. The most controversial, however, were the moves by Florida and Michigan to hold their contests outside the prescribed "window," going with dates in January, the timeframe reserved for the four states given an exemption (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina). This caused Iowa and New Hampshire to hold their contests immediately after New Year's Day. The Democratic Party initially sought to punish the offending states by stripping them of all their delegates, but ended up seating delegations where the votes were allocated proportionally to the two remaining candidates at the end of the process - Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
In order to try to control this competition, the two parties agreed to a common calendar that would result in a later start and reward state delegations determined in later contests. For some, this was a nice attempt at bipartisan cooperation, but it was short-lived and not necessarily because of the national parties. Many of the states once again attempted to move their contests outside the agreed upon window, thus forcing Iowa and New Hampshire to move even earlier. In fact, talk is that Iowa may end up moving its contest into December of 2011. As long as states continue to pursue economic or prestige gains, it will be difficult for either of the two parties to control the schedule.
One ironic note in all of this is that with the rush of states to go as early as possible, the two in question could have had a much greater impact on the outcome of the 2008 Democratic contest. Clinton and Obama were not far apart in either popular votes or pledged delegates when the final contests were held in the first week of June. If either Florida or Michigan (or both) had waited until the end of the process to hold their contests, they could have been the states determining which of the two candidates was the Party's standard bearer in the fall.
Jim Twombly - Associate Professor of Political Science at Elmira College. Teaching a wide range of subjects in American Politics. 40+ yrs in politics.
Join the Conversation