Social conservatives' strength in Republican national convention delegations has grown substantially over the past twenty years. This note demonstrates that this growth varied systematically across states depending on the combination of activist strategies and opportunities afforded by delegate selection rules. Using aggregate Republican convention data analysis from 1976-1996, and GLS regression analyses of state delegation data from 1984-1996, 1 test the impact of rules on the makeup of Republican delegations, and whether that effect has changed over time. I find that delegations from states with procedures which allow influence from the grassroots were more likely to have a high number of social conservative issue activists. This effect was first apparent in 1992, and continued in 1996. The opposite was true for socially liberal group activists.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ABC News. 1988 November. “ABC News General Election Exit Poll, November, 1988.” New York: ABC News [producer]. First Edition (1989, January). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium of Political and Social Research [distributor].
2.
ABC News/Washington Post. 1996. “1996 GOP Delegates Poll”. Radnor, PA: Chilton Research Services.
3.
Aldrich, J.1983. “A Downsian Spatial Model with Party Activism”. American Political Science Review77: 974-990.
4.
Aldrich, J.1995. Why Parties: The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics inAmenica. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
Ansolabehere, S., and G. King. 1990. “Measuring the Consequences of Delegate Section Rules in Presidential Nominations”.Journal of Politics52(2): 609-621.
6.
Ansolabehere, S., and J. M. Snyder. 1996. “Party Platform Choice in SingleMember Districts and Party List Systems.” Unpublished manuscript.
7.
Bibby, J. F, and Thomas M.Holbrook. 1996. “Parties and Elections”. In V Gray and H.Jacob, eds., Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis, 6th ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
8.
Butler, M. 1996. “Abortion and the Presidential Parties: From Pariah to Panacea.” Cornell University: Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.
9.
Cavala, W1977. “Changing the Rules Changes the Game: Party Reform and the 1972 Delegation to the Democratic National Convention”. American Political Science Review68(1): 27-44.
10.
CBS News/New York Times. 1996a, August 8. “CBS News/New York Times Poll: The GOP Convention, Tolerance and Abortion.”
11.
CBS News/New York Times. 1986b, November 4. “CBS News/New York Times National Election Day Poll”. The New York Times [producer]. First ICPSR Edition. (1987). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].
12.
Christian Coalition. 1990. “The Republican Party: Delegate Selection Process.” Unpublished photocopy
13.
Coleman, K.1996. Delegate Selection for the 1996 Democratic and Republican National Conventions. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
14.
Cox, G., and M. McCubbins. 1994. “Bonding, Structure, and the Stability of Political Parties: Party Government in the House”. Legislative Studies Quarterly19(2): 215-231.
15.
Dodson, D. L.1990. “Socialization of Party Activists: National Convention Delegates, 1972-1981”AmericanJournal of Political Science34(4): 1119-1141.
16.
Dolbee, S. 1996, August 4. “Coalition Delegates Most Ever”. San Diego UnionTribune: A18-A18.
17.
Erikson, R., J.Wright, and J. Mclver. 1993. Statehouse Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Fowler, R. B.1982. A New Engagement: Evangelical POlitical Thought, 19661976. Grand Rapids, MI: Erdmans Publishing Co.
19.
Geer, J. G.1988. “Assessing the Representativeness of Electorates in Presidential Primaries”. American Journal of Political Science32: 929-945.
20.
Geer, J. G.1986. “Rules Governing Presidential Primaries”. Journal of Politics48(4): 1006-1025.
21.
Gilbert, C.1995. “Christians and Quistians in Minnesota”. PS: Political Science and Politics28(1): 20-23.
22.
Green, J. D.1993. “Pat Robertson and the Latest Crusade: Religious Resources and the 1988 Campaign”. Social Science Quarterly74(1):
23.
Green, J. C., and J. Guth. 1988. “The Christian Right and the Republican Party: The Case of Pat Robertson's Supporters”. Journal of Politics (50).
24.
Greenblatt, A. 1996a, August 3. “The Platform Dance”. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report54 (31 supplement): 13-16.
25.
Jackson, John S. III. 1997. “Party Elite Study, 1996.” Carbondale, IL: Unpublished Data Set.
26.
Kirkpatrick, J.1976. The New Presidential Elite. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
27.
Layman, G.1997. “Religion and Political Behavior in the United States: The Impact of Beliefs, Affiliations, and Commitment from 1980 to 1994”. Public Opinion Quarterly61(2): 288-316.
28.
Luker, Kristin. 1984. Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. Berkeley: University of California Press.
29.
Miller, W E., and R. Herrera. 1995. Convention Delegate Study, 1992 [United States]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.
30.
Miller, W E., and M. K. Jennings. 1988. Convention Delegate Study, 1984 [United States]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium of Political and Social Research.
31.
Miller, W E., and M. K. Jennings. 1992. Convention Delegate Study, 1988 [United States]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium of Political and Social Research.
32.
Miller, W E., M. K. Jennings, and B. G. Ferah. 1985. Convention Delegate Study, 1980 [United States]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium of Political and Social Research.
33.
Moen, M.1993. The Transformation of the Christian Right. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
34.
Polsby, N.1983. The Consequences of Party Reform.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
35.
Reed, R. 1998, April 21. Interview. Ithaca, NY.
36.
Riker, W1980. “Implications from the Disequilibrium of Majority Rule for the Study of Institutions”. American Political Science Review74: 432-446.
37.
Shafer, B.1983. Quiet Revolution. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
38.
Shafer, B.1988. Bifurcated Politics: Evolution and Reform in the National Party Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
39.
Southwell, P L. (1986). “The 1984 Democratic Nomination Process: The Significance of Unpledged Superdelegates”. American Politics Quarterly14(1-2): 75-88.
40.
Southwell, P L.1992. “Rules as 'Unseen Participants': The Democratic Presidential Nomination Process”. American Politics Quarterly20(1): 54-68.
41.
Voter News Service. 1994. Voter News Service Election Exit Polls, 1994. New York: Voter News Service [Producer]. First Release (1995). Ann Arbor, MI: InterUniversity Consortium of Political and Social Research [Distributor].
42.
Voter Research and Surveys. 1990. CBS News/New York Times General Exit Poll: National File. New York: Voter Research and Surveys [Producer]. First Release 1991. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium of Political and Social Research [Distributor].
43.
Wilcox, C., M.Rozell, and J. B. Coker. 1995. “The Christian Right in the Old Dominion: Resurgent Republicans or Holy War?”PS: Political Science and Politics28(1): 15-18.
44.
Wildavsky, A.1985. “The Goldwater Phenomenon: Purists, Politicians, and the Two-Party System”. Review of Politics27: 386-415.
45.
Wilson, J. Q.1966. The Amateur Democrat: Club Politics in Three Cities (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
