Scholars interested in the speed with which each of the two major US political parties selects its presidential nominee focus on delegate allocation rules and voter preferences as possible sources of variation, but disagree as to the impact of each. I use computer simulations to explore the effects of these two variables. The simulations show that both proportional allocation and more diverse voter preferences increase the number of primaries that must be completed before a single candidate can amass sufficient delegates to guarantee nomination. These findings are consistent with the predictions of existing literature, but previous research generally presents delegate allocation rules and voter preferences as alternative rather than complementary explanations. The results presented here suggest that they have the potential to be complementary.
Aldrich, John
(1980) Before the Convention: Strategies and Choices in Presidential Nomination Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
Atkeson, Lonna Rae
(1998) ‘Divisive Primaries and General Election Outcomes: Another Look at Presidential Campaigns’, The American Journal of Political Science42: 256-271.
3.
Atkeson, Lonna Rae
(2000) ‘From the Primaries to the General Election: Does a Divisive Nomination Race Affect a Candidate’s Fortunes in the Fall?’, in William Mayer (ed.) Pursuit of the White House 2000: How We Choose Our Presidential Nominees, pp. 285-312. New York: Chatham House.
4.
Bartels, Larry M.
(1985) ‘Expectations and Preferences in Presidential Nominating Campaigns’, The American Political Science Review79: 804-815.
5.
Bartels, Larry M.
(1988) Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
Bernstein, Robert A.
(1977) ‘Divisive Primaries Do Hurt: U.S. Senate Races, 1956-1972’, The American Political Science Review71: 540-545.
7.
Buell, Emmett H.
(1986) ‘Divisive Primaries and Participation in Presidential Campaigns: A Study of 1984 New Hampshire Primary Activists’, American Politics Quarterly14: 376-390.
8.
Cain, Bruce E.
, I.A. Lewis and Douglas Rivers (1989) ‘Strategy and Choice in the 1988 Presidential Primaries’, Electoral Studies8: 23-48.
9.
Erikson, Robert S.
and Kent L. Tedin (1995) American Public Opinion: Its Origins, Content, and Impact. 5th edn.London: Allyn and Bacon.
10.
Fiorina, Morris P.
(1992) Divided Government. New York: Macmillan.
11.
Hacker, Andrew
(1965) ‘Does a ‘Divisive’ Primary Harm a Candidate’s Election Chances?’, The American Political Science Review59: 105-110.
12.
Johnson, Donald Bruce
and James R. Gibson (1984) ‘The Divisive Primary Revisited: Party Activists, in Iowa’, The American Political Science Review68: 67-77.
13.
Keith, Bruce E.
, David B. Magleby, Candice J. Nelson, Elizabeth Orr, Mark C. Westlye and Raymond E. Wolfinger (1992) The Myth of the Independent Voter. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
14.
Kenney, Patrick J.
and Tom W. Rice (1984) ‘The Effect of Primary Divisiveness in Gubernatorial and Senatorial Elections’, The Journal of Politics46: 904-915.
15.
Lengle, James I.
(1980) ‘Divisive Presidential Primaries and Party Electoral Prospects, 1932-1976’, American Politics Quarterly8: 261-277.
16.
Lengle, James I.
(1981) Representation and Presidential Primaries: The Democratic Party in the Post-Reform Era. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
17.
Lengle, James I.
, Diana Owen and Molly W. Sonner (1995) ‘Divisive Nominating Mechanisms and Democratic Party Electoral Prospects’, The Journal of Politics2: 370-383.
18.
Lengle, James I.
and Byron Shafer (1976) ‘Primary Rules, Political Power, and Social Change’, The American Political Science Review70: 25-40.
19.
Mayer, William G.
(1992) The Changing American Mind: How and Why American Pubic Opinion Changed between 1960 and 1988. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
20.
Mayer, William G.
(1996) The Divided Democrats: Ideological Unity, Party Reform, and Presidential Elections. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
21.
McClosky, Herbert
, Paul J. Hoffman and Rosemary O’Hara (1960) ‘Issue Conflict and Consensus Among Party Leaders and Followers’, The American Political Science Review54: 406-427.
22.
Merrill, Samuel
, Bernard Grofman, Thomas Brunell and William Koetzle (1999) ‘The Power of Ideologically Concentrated Minorities’, Journal of Theoretical Politics11: 57-74.
23.
Miller, Warren E.
, Donald R. Kinder, Steven J. Rosenstone and the National Election Studies (1992) American National Election Study: Pooled Senate Election Study, 1988, 1990, 1992 [computer file] (Study 9580). Conducted by University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies/Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [producers]. Ann Arbor: MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].
24.
Norrander, Barbara
(2000) ‘The End Game in Post-Reform Presidential Nominations’, Journal of Politics62: 999-1013.
25.
Polsby, Nelson
and William G. Mayer (1999) ‘Ideological Cohesion in the American Two-Party System’, in Nelson W. Polsby and Raymond E. Wolfinger (eds) On Parties: Essays Honoring Austin Ranney, pp. 219-254. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmental Studies Press.
26.
Stone, Walter J.
(1984) ‘Prenomination Candidate Choice and General Election Behavior: Iowa Presidential Activists in 1980’, The American Journal of Political Science28: 361-378.
27.
Stone, Walter J.
(1986) ‘The Carryover Effect in Presidential Elections’, The American Political Science Review80: 271-280.
28.
Stone, Walter J.
, Lonna Rae Atkeson and Ronald B. Rapoport (1992) ‘Turning On or Turning Off? Mobilization and Demobilization Effects of Presidential Nomination Campaigns’, The American Journal of Political Science36: 665-691.
29.
Wattenberg, Martin P.
(1991) ‘The Republican Presidential Advantage in the Age of Party Disunity’, in Gary W. Cox and Samuel Kernel (eds) The Politics of Divided Government, pp. 39-55. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
