This research examines the proliferation of Democratic state presidential preference primaries from 1972-80, an unintended consequence of McGovern-Fraser reforms to delegate selection adopted following the acrimonious 1968 Democratic National Convention. Unlike previous work, which has addressed the primary proliferation qualitatively and in a way that does not permit sorting out the various elements that may underlie the adoption of party reforms in the 1970s, we operationalize and test hypotheses about the influence of several factors -Democratic National Committee directives, party strength and type, partisan control of state government, home-state candidates, and divisive caucuses -on states moving from a caucus/convention arrangement of selecting delegates to a presidential preference primary. Our findings suggest that both national party efforts to involve more rank and file in the process and state characteristics predisposed some states to move in the direction of a preference primary rather than continuing with a party caucus/convention. Democratic control of state government, the presence of home-state candidates, and noncompliance with DNC directives were the most powerful forces behind states adopting Democratic presidential preference primaries.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aldrich, John H.1980. Before the Convention. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
Allison, Paul D.1984. Event History Analysis. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-046. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
Atkeson, Lonna Rae. 1998. “Divisive Primaries and General Election Outcomes: Another Look at Presidential Campaign.”American Journal of Political Science42: 256-271.
4.
Beck, Paul Allen. 1997. Party Politics in America, 8th ed.New York: Longman.
5.
Beck, Paul Allen, and Frank J. Sorauf. 1992. Party Politics in America, 7th ed.New York: HarperCollins.
6.
Berry, Frances Stokes, and William D. Berry. 1990. “State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis.”American Political Science Review84: 395-415.
7.
Bibby, John E1980. “Party Renewal in the National Republican Party” In Gerald M. Pomper, ed., Party Renewal in America: Theory and Practice. New York: Praeger.
8.
Bibby, John E, and Thomas M. Holbrook. 1996. “Parties and Elections.” In Virginia Gray and Herbert Jacob, eds., American Politics in the States: A Comparative Analysis. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly
9.
Bode, Kenneth A., and Carol F Casey1980. “Party Reform: Revisionism Revisited.” In Robert A. Goldwin, ed., Political Parties in the Eighties. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
10.
Cotter, Cornelius P, James L. Gibson, John F Bibby, and Robert J. Huckshorn. 1984. Party Organizations in American Politics. New York: Praeger.
11.
Cotter, Cornelius P., and Bernard Hennessy. 1964. Politics Without Power: National Party Committees. New York: Atherton.
12.
Crotty, William. 1983. Party Reform. New York: Longman.
13.
Crotty, William, and John S.Jackson III. 1985. Presidential Primaries and Nominations. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
14.
Demaris, Alfred. 1992. Logit Modeling: Practical Applications. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-086. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15.
Elazar, Daniel J.1984. American Federalism: A View from the States, 3rd ed.New York: Harper & Row.
16.
Geer, John G.1989. Nominating Presidents: An Evaluation of Voters and Primaries. New York: Greenwood Press.
17.
Hansen, Susan B.1983. The Politics of Taxation. Westport, CT: Praeger.
18.
Herrnson, Paul S.1988. Party Campaigning in the 1980s. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
Huckshorn, Robert J., and John E Bibby. 1983. “National Party Rules and Delegate Selection in the Republican Party.”PS16: 656-666.
20.
Keeter, Scott, and Cliff Zukin. 1983. Uninformed Choice. New York: Praeger.
21.
Kenney, Patrick J., and Tom W Rice. 1987. “The Relationship Between Divisive Primaries and General Election Outcomes.”American Journal of Political Science31: 31-44.
22.
King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
Lengle, James I.1980. “Divisive Presidential Primaries and Party Electoral Prospects, 1932-1976.”American Politics Quarterly8: 61-177.
24.
Lengle, James 1., and Byron Shafer. 1976. “Primary Rules, Political Power, and Social Change.”American Political Science Review70: 5-40.
25.
Lengle, James I., D. Owen, and M.W Sonner. 1995. “Divisive Nominating Campaigns and Democratic Party Electoral Prospects.”Journal of Politics57: 70-183.
26.
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Tom Rice. 1992. Forecasting Elections. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
27.
Mayhew, David R.1986. Placing Parties in American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
McGillvray, Alice V, and Richard M. Scammon. 1994. America at the Polls, 1960-1992. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
29.
Menard, Scott. 1995. Applied Logistic Regression Analysis. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-106. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
Oliver, Eric J.1996. “The Effects of Eligibility Restrictions and Party Activity on Absentee Voting and Overall Turnout.”American Journal of Political Science40: 498-513.
31.
Polsby, Nelson W1983. Consequences of Party Reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
32.
Price, David. 1984. Bringing Back the Parties. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
33.
Ranney, Austin. 1974. “Changing the Rules of the Nominating Game.” In James David Barber, ed., Choosing the President. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
34.
Ranney, Austin. 1975. Curing the Mischiefs of Faction. Berkeley: University of California Press.
35.
Ranney, Austin. 1978. The Federalization of Presidential Primaries. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
36.
Reiter, Howard L.1985. Selecting the President. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
37.
Shafer, Byron E.1983. Quiet Revolution. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
38.
Soule, John W, and James W Clarke. 1970. “Amateurs and Professionals: A Study of Delegates to the 1968 Democratic National Convention.”American Political Science Review64: 88-98.
39.
Westlye, Mark C.1991. Senate Elections and Campaign Intensity. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
40.
Wildavsky, Aaron. 1965. “The Goldwater Phenomenon: Purists, Politicians, and the Two-Party System.”Review of Politics27: 386-413.
41.
Wilson, James Q.1960. The Amateur Democrat. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
