Many commentators, and indeed Party Leaders, have regarded this development as detrimental to the functioning of the political system. Candidates can essentially by-pass the party leadership by appealing directly to grass-roots party membership and demonstrate his or her popularity at primaries. This had led to the growth of ‘candidate parties’ and the decline of national parties. For example Ronald Reagan, like both McGovern and Carter, built his own organisation, which used the primary system to circumvent traditional party power brokers; thus candidates are less beholden to Party “fat-cats.” This weakening of ties between the Party and a presidential candidate has arguably resulted in the election of ‘lame-duck’ presidents, less able to govern once in office because they cannot rely on the support of party colleagues in Congress. Notably, Clinton was hard pressed to effect his Welfare reforms. It should be remembered however that the role of parties has only been restricted, not removed altogether. Certain reforms in the 1980’s have retained party power, such as the Democrats introduction of ‘Super delegates’ which gave a 15% proportion of convention votes to party officials.
The parties' reduced power of nomination on the other hand, has allowed candidates who might not have been chosen the chance to stand, as candidacy no longer relies on a contender’s loyalty, rank or service within a party. President Clinton, considered a Washington outsider, would have not been able to stand had it not been for the primary system. Though this opening up the field is good in theory, many would contend experienced politicians are better placed to nominate a presidential candidate than the public. Those selected are not necessarily the best for the job, but merely the lowest common denominator.
Increasing numbers of state Primaries also suffer from “front-loading”, when states hold their primaries as early in the season as possible in order to receive the greatest media coverage. Consequently, party members of small states such as Iowa and New Hampshire have a disproportionate influence. As their contests take place first, their outcomes, and the spotlight placed on them by the media, will have a profound impact on the results of subsequent contests. The most important date is in March on “Super Tuesday” when 21 states declare their nominations. Not only does this mitigate against less well-known candidates who have had difficultly in publicizing their campaign over such a vast area, every candidate will have made “whistle stop” tours of the country in order to get their message across. “Whistle stop” tours are short and shallow and prevent the real issues from being discussed as the focus is on the size of the audience rather than the quality of the discussion. The results of Super Tuesday can also make or break a candidate as in 2000 it handed the Democrat nomination to Al Gore and broke the candidacy of James Bradley. As the results are all but a foregone conclusion, the upcoming primaries seem fruitless. In addition, the majority of these 21 states are southern which invariably favours southern candidates. Bill Clinton from Arkansas confirmed this in 1992 when he won practically all the nominations available. As a state, California is a vital primary to win as the state sends 20% of all delegates to both parties’ conventions.
The weakness of the National convention (in that the outcome is relatively preconceived) can be attributed to the strength of the primary system and in particular “front-loading”. The selection of presidential candidates is really just a formal rubber stamp of state-primary decisions. It does however have its strengths and important functions. At the Convention the candidate’s political platform is chosen and approved by the delegates and the party’s congressional representatives. Effectively it is a unifying event, harmonizing any conflict that surrounded primary contests. Jesse Jackson, a former Democratic candidate, embodied this cohesion when he made impassioned speeches to unite the party behind his rivals, Mondale in 1984 and Dukakis in 1988. National conventions are colossal exercises in PR which boost the morale and inspiration of party activists and candidates standing for local, state and congressional elections at the same time. With substantial media coverage, the “horse race” finally reaches a stage with significance to the public, for people can now think realistically about which ‘horse’ they wish to back.
The Primary System cannot be too censured either, if only for the undemocratic system it succeeded. It propounds a good degree of representation across the board because different wings of the party have a chance to air their views, so indicating which factions of the party voter preference truly lies. In 2000, voters were able to express preference for Bush, considered a right-wing republican, or John McCain, thought of as liberal. Bush, the more conservative of the two, fared much better against the opposing candidate Al Gore. An emphasis on person rather than party label enables a candidate's qualities to become apparent, such as in 2000 where Bush appeared the natural public statesman, whereas Gore stood rather wooden.
Candidates themselves have a clear role in affecting voter behaviour and charisma has a key role in his or her success, as Clinton demonstrated in 1996, who compared to Bob Dole, was considered more attractive and exciting. Interestingly, both presidential candidates of 2002 were considered lack-lustre and this could explain the low turnout of only 51% of VAP. The sheer enormity of the presidential election process has ensured a “survival” of the fittest as only candidates with stamina will succeed, which is reassuring, for a president’s role is hard work with little respite. The length of the process however, also has its shortcomings; by the November election the population will have been positively bombarded for months with advertising media coverage, leading to voter fatigue, loss of interest and consequentially the low turnout we have witnessed.
Television and the press dominate the setting of American elections and can often swing the presidential campaigns one way or the other. Successful campaign consultants will establish positive images of their candidates and negative ones of their opponents. One may consider this to be part of the process of healthy competition and entrepreneurship but many commentators have exposed how this can lead to spin-doctoring and the pursuit of marketable sound-bites instead of expressing topical matter. If a candidate’s stand on an issue cannot be condensed into a compelling phrase then it is unlikely to be reported. Televised news coverage has trivialised politics and what we are essentially left with is a beauty contest. In 2000 for example, Al Gore made chameleonic changes to his suit to appeal to the electorate and nobody seemed look beyond the “likeability” of G.W. Bush to the gaping hole in his political acumen and experience of foreign affairs. The focus of television news is firstly upon image, secondly upon phrase and only incidentally upon substance. Regrettably, negative advertising increasingly inspires voters. Directed at opponents it can place them detrimentally on the defensive, an apt illustration being Bush’s offensive presidential campaign against Dukakis in 1988. Television has also undermined the democracy of choosing presidential contenders by making money the foremost feature of US electioneering. The cost of television has ensured a pre-occupation with fund-raising and phone-soliciting; a flaw that led Governor Askew of Florida to give up his Senate campaign in 1988.
In order to be eligible for candidacy, one must raise substantial necessary funds originating from various sources, which invites the criticism of elitism. Personal funds are essential in order to succeed as candidates must be considerably well off if they are to waive their careers and a year of their life for the nomination process. Candidates can also receive donations from individuals and pressure groups who might support them. If candidates can show a broad-base appeal and raise at least $5000 from 20 different states, then they are entitled to federal grants, further benefiting the wealthy. In the case of third parties or independents, who don’t have the financial support and organisation behind them, only the wealthy or the famous have been selected for candidacy and had notable impact. When Ralph Nader affected the outcome of the 2000 election, he had the advantage of being a 60’s champion of consumer rights and long-standing politician; Ross Perot receiving 19% of the popular vote in 1992 was a billionaire oil tycoon and able to launch a far-reaching media campaign. However, spending money doesn’t guarantee success. After spending $60 million of his own money, Perot still lost both campaigns in 1992 and 1996. The campaign finance Act of 1974 was introduced in the wake of the Watergate affair and, in particular, the corruption associated with CREEP (Committee for the Re-Election of the President). The Act aimed to limit the spending of candidates and relieve the financial burden on the candidates themselves. Although it considerably increased the even-handedness of candidacy by limiting contributions and campaign spending, it did not foresee the corruption of “Soft money.” Rather than fund voter registration, much of it goes towards candidates campaigns, which is significant considering “soft money” was said to total $250 million in 1992. Since Bush’s scandalous first term with Enron and supposed oil-tycoon donations, many became disillusioned with the inextricable link between electioneering and money. In response, former Presidential candidate in 2000, John McCain, with fellow congressman Russ Feingold, pushed Campaign finance reform through congress with the Russ-Feingold Bill, which limited the advertising and ‘soft money’ of Political Action Committees (PACs). Finance however is still the fatal flaw in the electoral system of choosing presidential candidates. Bush can only attest this: with a larger “war-chest” than McCain he had an overwhelming advantage.
One can therefore conclude that the presidential candidate selection process is far from ideal. Governed by money, media and spin, as opposed to substance does mitigate against the intended democratic nature of an electoral process. Reforms, however, have shown an increasing respect for democracy, by giving the electorate greater power at the demise of party bureaucracies. The politics of entrepreneurship that suffuses US elections is integral to the philosophy of the American dream, thus the notion that the highest office in the land is bestowed to the greatest entrepreneur seems quite apt.