Primary Rules, Political Power, and Social Change

Lengle, James I.; Shafer, Byron E.

doi:10.2307/1960321

Cited by 22 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Scholars as well as politicians have always been interested in the rules that structure the electoral process and in whether those rules advantage one candidate or type of candidate over others (Norrander and Smith 1985, 28;Pomper 1985, 7-8). Lengle and Shafer (1976) have argued for a truly magisterial role for party rules. They contend that "altered primary regu-lations, over the medium run, could well determine which blocs will be influential within a party.…”

Section: The Impact Of Electoral Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Voting Outcomes in the 1984 Democratic Party Primaries and Caucuses

1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholarly inquiry concerning influences on electoral outcomes in the presidential nomination process, though extensive, has been conducted almost exclusively with data collected at the individual level of analysis. The Michigan model of normal vote analysis suggests that long-term influences measured at the aggregate level, such as the sociodemographic, economic, and ideological characteristics of the states, are also important in determining electoral outcomes. We present an aggregate-level analysis of state characteristics that affected the Hart, Jackson, and Mondale vote proportions in the 1984 Democratic caucuses and primaries. Our primary election models explain between 65% and 83% of the variance in candidate vote shares, with sociodemographic and economic factors as the leading indicators. In the caucuses, we find that campaign spending and sociodemographic influences are dominant in models that explain between 38% and 81% of the variance. We conclude with a brief discussion of what our findings mean for future Democratic candidates.

show abstract

Section: The Impact Of Electoral Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Voting Outcomes in the 1984 Democratic Party Primaries and Caucuses

1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The importance of delegate selection rules for presidential primaries and caucuses is reasonably well understood (Lengle and Shafer ; Joslyn ; Maisel and Lieberman ; Chamberlin and Cohen ; Gerston, Burnstein, and Cohen ; Hammond ; Geer ; Ansolabehere and King , Southwell ; Norrander ), particularly following the major reforms during the 1970s. Candidate selection establishes the choices voters have and the composition of the party in government offices.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polls and Elections Without Rhyme or Reason? Understanding Presidential Nomination Delegate Allocation Rules

Ross¹,

Cann²,

Burt³

2018

Pres Stud Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the prevailing two-party system in the United States, presidential primary and caucus outcomes strongly influence the choices available to voters in presidential elections. While the Democratic Party has strong national rules on how delegates are to be awarded from primaries and caucuses, the Republican Party allows significant local discretion in crafting rules that translate primary and/or caucus outcomes into pledged delegates. This is significant because delegate vote totals determine who becomes the party's nominee. Little is known, though, about the rationale for selecting different rules for delegate allocation. We develop a method for classifying delegate allocation rules using a three-category scale as winner take all, fully proportional, or mixed. We then evaluate how different factors, including state ideology, state size, and the number of states holding a primary on the same day can influence rules by which election results are translated into delegate counts.

show abstract

“…The results of the primaries alter each candidate's probability of nomination (viability) directly via the allocation of delegates and indirectly via media coverage, fundraising, and changes in the field of candidates (Aldrich 1980a(Aldrich , 1980bMarshall 1981;Damore 1997). Institutional factors directly affect campaign spending, media coverage, and the allocation of delegates, and indirectly affect vote outcomes and fundraising; thus they influence the choice of the eventual nominee (Lengle and Shafer 1976).…”

Section: Components Of Presidential Nomination Campaignsmentioning

confidence: 99%