Title:
|
Structure and strategy in presidential nominating politics since 1960
|
This study analyses the impact of institutional change upon
political behaviour. Beginning in 1968 a series of reforms transformed
the American presidential nominating process, amounting to
the most substantial changes since the inception of national conventions.
This study seeks to comprehend the effects of this
transformation upon the strategies employed by candidates and in
so doing assessing the influence upon the nominating process of
various actors - party leaders, voters, interest groups, campaign
organisations.
The comparative method is adopted to elucidate the impact of
change. The content and execution of strategy is compared across
continuous periods, the nominations immediately before (1960 - 68)
and after (1972 - 1980) reform.
A party function, candidate selection, is set within a theoretical
discussion of party. Familiar models of party are examined and
criticised for their inapplicability to the American case for their
omission of an intra-party role for voters. An additional ideal type
model is developed of a party dominated by. voters. -; the application
of direct democracy to intra-party affairs. This additional type is
integrated into the schemes analysed earlier, increasing their relevance
to American practice and providing a set of logical, possibilities
against which party reform can be measured.
Previous reforms of the presidential nominating process are
described and recurrent trends identified. The background to the
impetus for reform originating in the discontents of the McCarthy
campaign-to mobilise voters into the party-dominated selection process is described. The composition and functioning of the Commission
on Party Structure and Delegate Selection authorised in 1968 to
recommend reform proposals is discussed. The implementation of
reform, its unintended consequences, the work of subsequent reform
commissions in the Democratic Party, change in the Republican Party
and innovations in the regulation of campaign finance are detailed.
The combined impact of these reforms transformed the context
of nominating campaigns. Primaries became the dominant delegate
selection mechanism. The non-primary process was opened to extensive
voter participation. In both processes the linkage between
the candidate preferences of participating voters and the resulting
delegates tightened. The size of campaign donations was limited,
federal funds became available, and ceilings were placed on total
expenditures for recipients of federal aid.
Having depicted the altered context of the nominating contest
the study analyses the content and execution of strategy in the two
periods. The basis for comparison include the choices of strategies,
the form of campaign organisation and their relations with party
organisations, the conditions of interest group influence, the role
in strategy of the primary and non-primary processes, the content
of candidates' appeals and the means employed to communicate the
campaign.
The conclusion re-states the principal strategic differences
between the two periods. The strategic consequences of reform are
linked to the effects of previous reform efforts, and the model of
parties developed earlier.
|