The Presidential Nominating Process: Achieving Intended Outcomes?
Unlike elections in parliamentary democracies, and even other presidential democracies, U.S. presidential elections are very protracted processes. Rather than a sprint that lasts months, they are multi-year marathons. Almost from the moment a U.S. president is elected, the jockeying for the next election four years later begins. Aspiring candidates and their surrogates start popping up in diners, pizza joints, and living rooms in cities and towns across the important early caucus and primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire.
Shortly after the dust settles from the intervening midterm elections, the intensity picks up as candidates start making their official announcements. This election cycle, Republican Senator Ted Cruz (TX) declared on March 23, 2015, roughly 10 months ahead of the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, and just a few weeks later, on April 12, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton formally launched her bid for the White House.
The length of the campaign also requires a commitment of increasingly astronomical financial resources. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the entire field of Democratic and Republican presidential candidates spent more than $2.6 billion dollars over the course of the 2012 campaign, a figure that does not even account for expenditures by outside groups, including Super PACs. And in this election cycle, even prior to the December 31, 2015, Federal Election Committee filing deadline, the Center reported that candidates had already raised $263 million, and presidential candidate Super PACs had collected $208 million![i]
Given the length and price tag, it is worthwhile asking whether the presidential nominating process is achieving intended outcomes. That’s an especially good question right now, since a crowded field of candidates, such as we have on the Republican side, can make the process feel overwhelming.
Particularly for citizens in states that don’t hold caucuses and primaries until March or April, it may even be tempting to think there’s little point in paying close attention until the field winnows itself. But an engaged citizenry is always preferable to an indifferent one, and better understanding the intended outcomes of the nominating process can help keep voters engaged.
There is no universally agreed upon set of outcomes, but when I teach courses on presidential elections, I frequently reference a set of criteria utilized by University of Texas political science professor Dr. Bruce Buchanan. He argues that for the nominating process to be “both democratic and able to produce effective presidential leadership,”[ii] it must accomplish these five tasks:
- Provide three important forms of nomination democracy
- Prepare voters to make well-grounded choices
- Produce two or more well-qualified nominees
- Set the stage for a consensus-building general election campaign
- Contribute to effective presidential leadership
Clearly, no nomination process could accomplish all of that overnight, but assessing the current process according to this framework helps determine whether its length is justifiable.
1. Provide three important forms of nomination democracy: a) voters choose the nominees; b) voters above moneyed interests; c) nomination by ballot petition
Giving Voters Final Say
While the point of presidential caucuses and primaries is to allow voters, collectively, to determine which candidates wind up on the ballot in presidential elections, that selection process doesn’t always go according to plan. In fact, the crowded field of Republican candidates, combined with new party rules about the allocation of delegates (a mixture of proportional and winner-take-all contests depending on the date of the state’s caucus/primary), raises the faint specter of a GOP convention this summer in Cleveland where no candidate has attained the requisite number of pledged delegates to secure the nomination. A brokered convention would be newsworthy and would undoubtedly excite journalists who have been less than thrilled with the highly staged, infomercial feel of recent conventions. But it would not be likely to reflect the preferences of rank-and-file Republican voters.
By contrast, in Democratic contests, voters will almost certainly feel as if the process meets Buchanan’s standard of voters, rather than delegates, choosing their nominee.
Money's Role in the Nomination Process
The influence of moneyed interests, however, is a whole different story. There is broad consensus that the historic Citizens United Supreme Court decision in 2010 has increased the influence of wealthy donors. The decision ushered in the era of Super PACs that can raise unlimited contributions from donors and advocate on behalf of or against candidates. These organizations have made their full imprint on the nomination process by providing an independent source of financial support for a candidate, enabling even a campaign that is struggling financially to remain in the nomination fight longer than would have been possible otherwise. Many analysts would argue that Buchanan’s ideal of “voters above moneyed interests” is not being met.
Ballot Access for Third-Party Candidates
Buchanan’s third subcategory, nomination by ballot petition, references the ability of individuals outside of the two major parties to gain ballot access according to the requirements established by each state. If you are looking for choices beyond the Democratic and Republican tickets, you will likely have one or more options in your state (perhaps even someone named Trump if he does not win the GOP nomination), but ballot access laws and inattention from mainstream media sources stack the deck against third-party candidates—despite the fact that a 2015 Gallup poll found that 60 percent of respondents believe the two major parties do such a poor job of representing citizens that a third party is needed.[iii] Again, Buchanan’s criteria is access rather than viability, and access, while more difficult in some places than others, is still attainable in our democratic electoral process.
2. Prepare voters to make well-grounded choices
While there are criticisms that the primary election period is too lengthy, Buchanan notes that the long period actually helps voters become more familiar with lesser-known candidates whom they might overlook if the season were truncated to a few short months. In particular, the dynamics in Iowa and New Hampshire, where personal connections between candidates and voters are more readily forged, work to the benefit of the lesser-known candidates. In the current election, this is a partial explanation for Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson’s rise in the polls during the late summer and early fall of 2015.
Part of preparing voters to make well-grounded choices is providing them with information about candidates and policies. Research demonstrates that even citizens who are less politically engaged are more likely to absorb information if given sufficient time before they vote. Studies have shown, for instance, that candidate debates, despite the occasional odd questioning by moderators and posturing by candidates, act as an important source of information for voters. Indeed, one such study noted that these events help voters learn more about candidates with whom they are less familiar.[iv]
3. Produce two or more well-qualified nominees
In presenting this criterion, Buchanan’s definition of qualified is “to be electable and to be both professionally and personally capable of fulfilling the demands of the presidency.”[v] The current dilemma voters in upcoming GOP primaries and caucuses will have to confront is whether the conventional definition of relevant experience—higher positions of government such as cabinet secretary, senator, or governor—is requisite or whether notable accomplishments in the private sector (real estate developer, CEO of a Fortune 500 company, neurosurgeon) are sufficient training grounds for the presidency.
Here again, the length of the nominating season and all of the rigors of campaigning in settings ranging from state fairs and backyard barbecues to formal dinners and nationally televised debates arguably help reveal the personal qualities and relevant professional capabilities of the candidates. As Buchanan notes, the lengthy process not only winnows out candidates who cannot consistently demonstrate the ability to comprehend complex policies, effectively articulate policy positions, engage voters, and respond to the barrage of media questioning, but also builds a fitness for meeting these same demands that are placed upon whoever occupies the Oval Office. Just as a four-year term is more like a long-distance race than a sprint, a marathon nominating process may well be better preparation for the presidency than a 100-meter dash.
4. Set the stage for a consensus-building general election campaign
In addition to well-qualified candidates, the nominating process should help the electorate draw clear distinctions between political parties and delineate the most salient issues in the minds of the voters. Particularly in elections that do not include an incumbent seeking reelection, as is currently the case, the parties need sufficient time and space to deliberate internally before articulating a vision for the future at their national nominating conventions in the summer. This is especially important when more than a dozen candidates are vying for a party’s nomination!
The time and space afforded by a protracted primary season is also increasingly important to parties adapting to rapid changes in the demographics of the American electorate. For instance, according to a 2013 Pew Research Center report, the number of eligible Latino voters increased from 19.5 to 23.3 million between the 2008 and 2012 elections, a 19 percent increase.[vi] While Latinos have a lower voter registration and turnout rate than Caucasians or African Americans, the growing number of Latinos in the U.S. population as a whole has an impact on party positions on issues, messaging, and outreach.
5. Contribute to effective presidential leadership
While there is no consensus on the exact character traits required for effective presidential leadership, Buchanan notes that the lengthy and tumultuous nominating process tends to “select” for “intensely ambitious people who have great energy, stamina and resilience . . . [and] who are willing to endure setbacks and other trials, to sacrifice private life and to take big risks”—all traits needed in the exercise of the duties and expectations of the office.[vii]
In addition to the candidates themselves, the people who will support the eventual victor through a wide range of official duties also need sufficient proving grounds to hone the requisite skills. Campaign communication directors, press secretaries, policy directors, and senior advisors are among the many individuals who wind up in equivalent positions in the White House. A primary election season that lasted only a few months would hardly allow the candidate and staffers to test operational structures and processes before going about the management of the country’s business, not merely the campaign’s.
Conclusion
There is no question that the current nominating process is both lengthy and expensive. To shorten the time frame, proposals such as a single national primary day or a regional primary (where the country is broken into four regions and, on a rotating basis, each region votes on a single day over a four-month period) have been tossed around for years. However, none of these proposals have gained any remotely serious traction within either the political parties or the state governments, who ultimately set the dates for the nominating elections.
A public financing system could certainly reduce the overall cost of the nominating campaign. But this seems improbable without, on the one hand, a commitment from candidates to adhere to such limits or, on the other, the imposition of mandatory limits, which raises questions about the infringement of First Amendment rights and seems unlikely given recent judicial decisions.
So, while I can’t provide much optimism when it comes to the cost and duration, hopefully I’ve provided, with the aid of Buchanan’s criteria, a perspective that highlights some of the beneficial aspects of the current system for voters and the eventual nominees—a perspective that will help you make it across the finish line with a new respect and appreciation for the nominating process.
Dr. Brian Roberts (C’88) is a professor of political science at Principia College, where he has taught since 1997. In early January, Dr. Roberts led an academic field program for 10 College students to Iowa and New Hampshire, where they studied the presidential nominating process. They shared their findings and experiences in real time on Principia College’s Facebook page, Twitter account, and field program blog.
This is an abridged version of an article that appeared in the Winter 2016 edition of the Principia Purpose.
[i]Center for Responsive Politics. “Behind the Candidates: Campaign Committee and Outside Groups.” https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/raised_summ.php (accessed December 12, 2015). Contributions reported are from the September 2015 FEC filing deadline, the most recent deadline prior to submission of this article.
[ii] Bruce Buchanan. “The Presidency and the Nominating Process,” in The Presidency and the Political System, 4th ed. Michael Nelson, ed. (Washington: CQ Press, 1995), 227.
[iii]Justin McCarthy. “Majority in U.S. Maintain Need for Third Major Party.” Gallup. September 25, 2015. http://www.gallup.com/poll/185891/majority-maintain-need-third-major-party.aspx?version=print (accessed October 26, 2015).
[iv]Thomas Holbrook. 1999. “Political Learning from Presidential Debates.” Political Behavior 21 (1): 67–89.
[v]Buchanan, 236.
[vi] Mark Hugo Lopez and Ana Gonzales-Barrera. “Inside the 2012 Latino Electorate.” Pew Research Center. June 3, 2013. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/06/03/inside-the-2012-latino-electorate/ (accessed October 27, 2015).
[vii] Buchanan, 241.