Understanding the origins of primary elections has important implications for evaluating their role in American elections. While there is little argument about the importance of primaries to the American electoral system, there is less agreement about why states adopted the direct primary and what they were intended to accomplish. Previous scholarship has laid out three theories: the strength of the progressive movement, parties' efforts to maintain one-party rule, and the urbanization of American society. Using comprehensive state-level data from 1892 to 1930, we test these theories of states' adoption of direct primaries. We find a strong influence of the strength of the progressive movement and the rate of urbanization on the adoption of the direct primary, but we do not, however, find any influence of state partisan competition. Our findings reinforce original arguments about the importance of the progressive movement and urbanization in the adoption of the direct primary.
AdamsJamesMerrillSamuel. 2008. “Candidate and Party Strategies in Two-Stage Elections Beginning with a Primary.” American Journal of Political Science52 (2): 344-359.
2.
AnsolabehereStephenHansenJohn MarkHiranoShigeoSnyderJames. 2007. “The Incumbency Advantage in U.S. Primary Elections.” Electoral Studies26 (3): 660-668.
3.
BartonAlbert Olaus. La Follette’s Winning of Wisconsin (1894-1904). Des Moines, IA: Homestead Company, 1922.
4.
BartonRichard. 2023. “The Primary Threat: How the Surge of Ideological Challengers Is Exacerbating Partisan Polarization.” Party Politics29 (2): 248-259.
5.
BawnKathleenBrownKnoxOcampoAngela X.PattersonShawnRayJohn L.ZallerJohn. 2023. “Groups, Parties, and Policy Demands in House Nominations.” In Accountability Reconsidered: Voters, Interests, and Information in U.S. Policy Making, edited by CameronC.Canes-WroneB.GordonS.HuberG. A., 89-126. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BerryFrances S.BerryWilliam D.. 1990. “State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis.” American Political Science Review84 (2): 395-415.
7.
BlumRachel M.2020. How the Tea Party Captured the GOP: Insurgent Factions in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8.
BoatrightRobert G.2014. Getting Primaried: The Changing Politics of Congressional Primary Challenges. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
9.
Box-SteffensmeierJanet M.JonesBradford S.. 2004. Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10.
CohenMartyKarolDavidNoelHansZallerJohn. 2008. The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations before and after Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
DallingerFrederick W.1897. Nominations for Elective Office in the United States. London: Longman, Green, and Co.
12.
DominguezCasey B. K.2011. “Does the Party Matter? Endorsements in Congressional Primaries.” Political Research Quarterly64 (3): 534-544.
13.
DurbinMichael J. 2007. Party Affiliations in the State Legislatures: A Year by Year Summary, 1796-2006. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.
14.
FouirnaiesAlexanderHallAndrew B.. 2020. “How Divisive Primaries Hurt Parties: Evidence from Near-Runoffs in US Legislatures.” Journal of Politics82 (1): 43-56.
15.
GalderisiPeter F.EzraMarnLyonsMichael. 2001. Congressional Primaries and the Politics of Representation. Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield.
16.
GalderisiPeter F.EzraMarni. 2001. “Congressional Primaries in Historical and Theoretical Context.” In Congressional Primaries and the Politics of Representation, edited by GalderisiP. F.EzraM.LyonsM.. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
17.
GranthamDewey W.1981. “The Contours of Southern Progressivism.” American Historical Review86 (5): 1035-1059.
18.
HarveyAnnaMukherjeeBumba. 2006. “Electoral Institutions and the Evolution of Partisan Conventions, 1880-1940.” American Politics Research34 (3): 368-398.
19.
HassellHans J. G.2016. “Party Control of Party Primaries: Party Influence in Nominations for the U.S. Senate.” Journal of Politics78 (1): 75-87.
20.
HassellHans J. G.2018. The Party’s Primary: Control of Congressional Nominations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21.
HassellHans J. G.2023. “Party Elite Engagement and Coordination in House Primary Elections: A Test of Theories of Parties.” American Journal of Political Science67 (2): 307-323.
22.
HiranoShigeoKaslovskyJaclynOlsonMichael P.SnyderJames M.. 2022. “The Growth of Campaign Advertising in the United States, 1880-1930.” Journal of Politics84 (3): 1482-1496.
23.
HiranoShigeoSnyderJames M.. 2019. Primary Elections in the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24.
HiranoShigeoSnyderJames M.AnsolabehereStephenHansenJohn Mark. 2010. “Primary Elections and Partisan Polarization in the US Congress.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science5 (2): 169-191.
25.
JewellMalcolm E.MorehouseSarah M.. 2001. Political Parties and Elections in American States. 4th ed.Washington, DC: CQ Press.
KousserJ. Morgan. 1974. The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
28.
KousserThadScottLucasMasketSeth E.McGheeEric. Kingmakers or Cheerleaders? Party Power and the Causal Effects of Endorsements. Political Research Quarterly. 2015; 68(3): 443–456.
29.
KujalaJordan. 2020. “Donors, Primary Elections, and Polarization in the United States.” American Journal of Political Science64 (3): 587-602.
30.
LaFolletteRobert. 1898. “Primary Elections for the Nomination of All Candidates by Australian Ballot.” Michigan University, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
31.
LawrenceEric D.ToddDonovanBowlerShaun. 2009. “Adopting Direct Democracy: Tests of Competing Explanations of Institutional Change.” American Politics Research37 (6): 1024-1047.
32.
LawrenceEricToddDonovanBowlerShaun. 2013. “The Adoption of Direct Primaries in the United States.” Party Politics19 (1): 3-18.
33.
LinkArthur S.1946. “The Progressive Movement in the South.” North Carolina Historical Review23 (2): 172-195.
34.
MasketSeth E.2016. The Inevitable Party: Why Attempts to Kill the Party System Fail and How They Weaken Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
35.
MasketSeth E.2020. Learning from Loss: The Democrats, 2016-2020. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36.
MerriamCharles E.1923. “Nominating Systems.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science106 (1): 1-10.
37.
MerriamCharles E.OverackerLouise. 1928. Primary Elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38.
RanneyAustin. 1975. Curing the Mischiefs of Faction: Party Reform in America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
39.
ReynoldsJohn F.2006. The Demise of the American Convention System, 1880-1911. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40.
ReynoldsJohn F.2018. “The Origins of the Direct Primary.” In Routledge Handbook of Primary Elections, edited by BoatrightR. G., 39-56. New York: Routledge.
41.
SoraufFrank J.1972. Party Politics in America. 2nd ed.Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
42.
WalkerJack L.1969. “The Diffusion of Innovations Among the American States.” American Political Science Review63 (3): 880-899.
43.
WareAlan. 2002. The American Direct Primary: Party Institutionalization and Transformation in the North. New York: Cambridge University Press.
44.
WhiteWilliam Allen. 1910. The Old Order Changeth: A View of American Democracy. New York: Macmillan.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
