`I shall now assess the strengths and weaknesses of these procedures, concentrating firstly on the weaknesses. One of the principal effects of the reforms to the nominating system in the early 1970s has been to weaken the political parties and many commentators, and indeed party leaders, regard this development as detrimental to the functioning of the political system. Candidates for a party's presidential nomination can essentially by-pass the party leadership through the media by appealing directly to the grass-roots party membership and demonstrating his popularity in the presidential primaries. This has led to the development of 'candidate parties', that is organisations separate from the regular party organisation, and the decline of national parties. This is illustrated by Reagan's campaign for the nomination as "Ronald Reagan, like both McGovern and Carter, built his own organisation, which used the primary system to circumvent traditional party power brokers" (Woll & Binstock, 1991, p216). Thus, candidates are no longer beholden to party leaders and consequently national party leaderships have experienced a demise in their role and influence.
`It can further be argued that the weakening of the ties between party and presidential candidate and the increased personalisation of the campaign has resulted in the election of candidates less able to govern once they have attained the presidential office. Personal responsibility has replaced party responsibility and the weakened links between the president and his party means that he is less able to rely upon the support of party colleagues in Congress and thus is less effective. As Broder & Robinson note, the U.S. has not had a true 'party government' president since Truman (cited by Reiter, 1985, p138). The absence of party unity between the executive and legislative branches of government has therefore often resulted in a 'lame duck' president, unable to effect reforms because he cannot count on the loyalty of party Congress members.
`It should be remembered however that the role of parties has only been restricted not removed altogether and that certain reforms in the 1980s have seen a limited move to return some of the power lost by party leaderships. For example, the Democratic Party introduced 'superdelegates', a measure which gave a proportion, approximately 15%, of convention votes to uncommitted party officials selected through party channels (Woll & Binstock, 1991, p218). The Republican Party leadership, by contrast, had always retained substantially more influence over the nomination than the Democrats.
`A major defect of the current procedures used to choose presidential candidates is the impact that the media, and in particular television, has over the process. As Woll & Binstock note, "primaries tend to benefit, in this television age, charismatic and stylish leaders with strong financial backing" (1991, p217). Media coverage of the primaries is extensive and television has become an increasingly vital medium through which candidates can project themselves. This has the undoubtedly negative effect of prohibiting those who can't afford to advertise on television or participate in "the most expensive campaign in the world" from standing (Ragsdale, 1993, p100). Furthermore, the media has perhaps taken over the role of professional politicians in assessing candidates. Through the extensive use of opinion polling and their own interpretations, journalists set arbitrary but well-publicised standards by which candidates are judged: 5% support nationwide being seen as the minimum level necessary to continue to stand whilst 15% is regarded as a 'serious contender' (Ragsdale, 1993, p101). Extensive television coverage would also seem to favour 'televisual' candidates - although Hess doubts this (1987, p81) - who do not necessarily make the most effective presidents once in office. The length of the nominating process can also be attributed in part to the media which, as well as covering all the primaries, also carries extensive coverage of the pre-primary period. Thus the media must take responsibility for the fact that, for the candidates, the race to win the presidential nomination is "a demanding, exhausting, time-consuming and expensive ritual" (Woll & Binstock, 1991, p221).
`The phenomenon of 'frontloading' can be attributed to the media interest in primaries and the powerful influence of its coverage. Increasingly, states have tried to hold their primaries as early as state laws allow because the earlier primaries receive greatest media coverage and have a profound influence upon later primaries. The mid-1980s saw an overt effort by many of the southern states to move their contests forward and thus increase their influence (Ceasar, 1987, pp38-39). Currently, twenty states hold their delegate selections on the first Tuesday in March, so-called 'Super Tuesday' in order to try and gain maximum media coverage. 'Frontloading' occurs because of the present procedures for selecting presidential candidates; primaries being seen as exciting events, the candidates being engaged in a 'horserace'. However, 'frontloading' is detrimental to the democratisation of the nomination process that was the intention of the reformers of the 1960s and early 1970s. The 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 belief that increased popular participation is undesirable has formed another criticism of the nominating procedures. Jeane Kirkpatrick, for example, argues that "a primary-dominant system, because primaries are more inclusive, is indiscriminate about who participates and careless about the choices being made for the party and the nation" (Crotty & Jackson, 1985, pp98-99). It is suggested that direct primaries give more opportunity for party activists, who tend to be more ideological, issue-oriented and concerned for the short-term, to determine the nomination at the expense of party elites who would make the most rational choices upon consideration of the party and the public interest. Democracy is seen as resulting from competition between parties and not the extension of mass participation which leads to extremism. Therefore, this 'restoration' school advocates the returning of the power to choose presidential candidates to the party leaderships.
`The final criticism that can be made of the current procedures for nominating presidential candidates is that they are constantly changing and thus a high degree of instability is introduced into the political system. In the absence of any constitutional laws or nationally accepted conventions, the process has been reformed and re-reformed. As Ceasar notes, no two successive nominating contests have taken place under the same general rules since 1968 (1987, p30). It is generally accepted that the rules under which a competition take place go some way to determining the outcome and thus the nominating rules have been consistently manipulated for short-term advantage. Ceasar argues that this institutional stability has been detrimental in several ways. Firstly, it has resulted in increased factional struggles, especially in the Democratic Party, over nominating rules and, secondly, it has detracted from the true objective of selecting a qualified, able candidate (Ceasar, 1987, p32).
`Having examined the principal weaknesses of the present procedures, I shall now consider its perceived strengths. These, I believe, can be divided into three categories: the opening of the process to more candidates, its democratisation through mass participation and the legitimacy given to candidates when nominated. Firstly, the replacement of party bosses with grass-roots party members as the 'selectorate' has allowed a wider range of candidates to be able to enter the race for the presidential nomination. More opportunity has been given for 'outsiders' to pursue the nomination as being in favour with the party leadership is now less important than demonstrating popularity amongst the public through the primaries and the media coverage has enabled unknowns to quickly establish an identity with the voters. The system therefore appears to expand the pool of candidates as it enables self-starters, for example Jesse Jackson, to appeal directly to grass-roots members rather than needing to establish a strong power base within the party's elite (Ceasar, 1987, pp41-42). However, although the nomination process may be more open at the outset, and this is definitely debatable given the expense, time and energy needed to campaign, it is quickly closed to those candidates who perform badly in the earlier primaries. As has already been illustrated, those candidates which do not receive a certain percentage of the vote as prescribed by the media are immediately disregarded as being serious contenders.
`Next, it can be argued that, contrary to the restoration school of thought, popular participation enhances democracy and is, therefore, desirable. From this standpoint, primaries are seen as intrinsically important as they increase the participation of rank-and-file members and decrease the power of a minority of party leaders. Participation in this way is seen to be important as it performs an educative function for the voters who are perceived to possess superior judgement and wisdom through their collective knowledge and experience (Crotty & Jackson, 1985, pp97-98). This position is, I believe, somewhat flawed. As has already been noted, voter turnout in primaries tends to be low and is dominated by the more extreme party members taking a short-term view and thus unrepresentative of party supporters as a whole. The system, therefore, does not achieve popular participation on the scale envisaged by those who support the view that participation is a basic necessity for democracy. Instead, it opens the door for the more motivated and extreme party activists to have a disproportionate influence upon the nomination of the party's presidential candidate.
`Michael Nelson argues that the grass-roots nomination process has strengthened the major parties by giving candidates a legitimacy with the public that did not exist under previous arrangements (Woll & Binstock, 1991, p219). It is contended that, under a system of brokered conventions, the nominee had not demonstrated that he was favoured by the electorate and thus had little legitimacy in the eyes of the public. However, if one accepts that participation in primaries, although open to all party members, is in reality dominated by a minority, then the legitimacy given to the nominee cannot be that much greater than that of a candidate chosen solely by the minority of the party leadership.
`In conclusion, I believe that the weaknesses of the presidential nominating procedures far outweigh its limited strengths. The system's effect of weakening the parties can be regarded as undesirable in itself, however it has also had the knock-on effect of weakening the ties between president and party and making the president less effective. The system encourages media coverage which has resulted in the campaign being an expensive, lengthy and personalised affair. The perceived strength of the system in that it allows popular participation is not borne out in practice, whilst the supposed advantage of the system in allowing an open, more accessible race has been eroded due largely to the influence of the media. However, the biggest defect of the procedures is that the rules are not entrenched and thus are continually changing, a process leading inevitably to instability in the political system. Although I would not go as far as Ceasar in arguing that the "overt politicisation" of the system's rules could "threaten the well-being of the entire political system" (Ceasar, 1987, pp29-32), the fact that the rules for selecting the candidates for the single most powerful office in the West are able to be manipulated for short-term gain would seem to be the most serious failing of the system.
Bibliography
P. Woll & R. H. Binstock, America's Political System, 1991, Mcgraw-Hill
L. Ragsdale, Presidential Politics, 1993, Houghton Mifflin Co.
K. Janda, J. Berry & G. Goldman, The Challenge of Democracy, 1994, Houghton Mifflin Co.
H. L. Reiter, Selecting the President. The Nomination Process in Transition, 1985, University of Pennsylvania Press
W. Crotty & J. S. Jackson III, Presidential Primaries and Nominations, 1985, Congressional Quarterly Inc.
S. Hess, "Why Great Men Are Not Chosen President", from A. James Reichley ed., Elections American Style, 1987, The Brookings Institution
J. W. Ceasar, "Improving the Nominating Process", from Reichley ed., op. cit.
