Caucuses and Primaries

Abstract

In 1968 battles over delegate selection rules and procedures for the national party conventions erupted anew. During the following decade, reformers advanced multiple standards for the delegate selection and presidential nomination process. While many of these goals have been incorporated into party rules and into state or federal law, little research yet exists by which to evaluate how fully presidential primaries versus caucus convention systems achieve these various standards. A review of the 1976 presidential delegate selection process suggests that presidential primaries and caucus convention systems meet most reform goals equally well, although some differences are found between these two modes of delegate selection.A full decade has now passed since liberals and reformers at the rancorous 1968 Democratic National Convention established a reform commission to formulate new delegate selection rules for the 1972 presidential nomination. At odds at that convention and during the following decade were two basically opposing views of how the president should be nominated. On the one hand, presidential nominations through 1968 resulted from a process of limited and indirect mass participation; that system relied instead on established party leaders to select the delegates and eventually to decide on a candidate (Gamson, 1962;Pomper, 1966). For reformers, on the other hand, what was needed was more grassroots participation in and control over delegate selection, and more representation for previously underrepresented minorities. This second view largely eliminated the role of the regular party leadership, relying instead on a more direct relationship between Author's Note: The author would like to express appreciation to the following: Frank Sorauf and Jay Hakes, for readmg and commenting on an earlier version of this article; the University of Texas at Arlington, for computer assistance; and to Marget Hagen, Michele Bock, and Denise Parker for research and editorial assistance.