The history of the US primary system
Commenter “Nick” wrote:
…[R]emember, the reason that the parties got rid of the back rooms was Nixon. The Republicans chose him for the ticket five times. Unlikable and corrupt. The system had to be scrapped after that.
After I read that, I thought about the primary system and how it came to be. Although I realized I didn’t remember exactly, it seemed to me that it was not in reaction to Nixon.
And that turns out to have been the case. I think a refresher course in what actually happened is in order:
In 1910, Oregon became the first state to establish a presidential preference primary, which requires delegates to the National Convention to support the winner of the primary at the convention. By 1912, twelve states either selected delegates in primaries, used a preferential primary, or both. By 1920 there were 20 states with primaries, but some went back, and from 1936 to 1968, 12 states used them.
At that point, most primaries were non-binding. They were indications to the leadership of what the people preferred, but in many states the leaders could ignore that.
Seeking to boost voter turnout, New Hampshire simplified its ballot access laws in 1949…The first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary has since become a widely-observed test of candidates’ viability.
The impetus for national adoption of the binding primary election was the chaotic 1968 Democratic National Convention. Vice President Hubert Humphrey secured the nomination despite not winning a single primary under his own name. After this, a Democratic National Committee-commissioned panel led by Senator George McGovern ”“ the McGovern”“Fraser Commission ”“ recommended that states adopt new rules to assure wider participation. A large number of states, faced with the need to conform to more detailed rules for the selection of national delegates, chose a presidential primary as an easier way to come into compliance with the new national Democratic Party rules. The result was that many more future delegates would be selected by a state presidential primary. The Republicans also adopted many more state presidential primaries.
See more here:
[1901-1906] is the time period in which many states started experimenting with or implementing the new primary system…By 1912, almost all states had some mix of laws that would allow for a preferential primary and/or a direct election of delegates to the convention…
The article goes on to explain that it was the McCarthy/Humphrey convention, and criticism by McCarthy, that propelled the process that led to the modern primary system, and it occurred in the Democratic primary.
The Republicans followed, but more slowly and more piecemeal, and the process doesn’t seem to have been a reaction to Nixon:
After a heated 1964 GOP National Convention, the republicans realized that they needed to take a more critical look at their own process…The GOP would then go on to form three committees to review their own procedures, but with interestingly different goals than the Democrats.
Read the whole thing—at least the part about the history of both parties with the primary system. To me, the primary system seems to have been a long time coming, and part and parcel of the slow evolution (devolution?) from a republic to a democracy.
The KEY reason that the primary system ‘took off’ was the growing recognition that under such a regime one could STAY in Congress — especially the House — for years on end.
Prior to the primary system, very few House Representatives ever had more than ONE term.
The smoke-filled room boys ALWAYS rotated the slot to a fresh face – time and time again… both parties.
It, the slot, was deemed a party ‘spoil’ and never the property of one pol.
The primary system stopped that cold. Now a pol could leap over his party — with his patronage to them — and never have to square off with his peer competitors within his Congressional district.
The path to career politicians was set.
Now we have total boobs, like Senator Boxer, re-elected.
In the 19th Century such a shameful fool would never be stood up for office — least of all twice.
I stand by my misleading generalizations.
Nick:
I didn’t mean to pick on you.
But I think the actual history is interesting.
This is the primary reason–no pun intended–that the Republican convention could and should reject Trump. The purpose of the convention was originally to choose the candidate, not to rubber stamp for four or five days on TV what was already a done deal in the primaries. The Republicans need to reform their system by returning to a real convention to prevent carpetbaggers like Trump from hijacking the party. Also, they must do it this year, because if Trump is nominated it will be too late.
Finally! Amid all the hyperventilating about “stealing delegates”, someone has finally published the history. Thank you, Neo.
Wooly Bully:
I agree with you entirely, except for one thing (and it’s a big thing)—it’s already too late. Not that they couldn’t do what you say. They could. But if they do, a lot of people will reject them, even people who don’t like Trump.
The problem occurred a long time ago, and the problem is (for want of a better term) populism. Or pure democracy. Or whatever you call the idea that representatives are no good and the people should have a direct say without the middlemen/women.
That idea has been developing with greater and greater force since some time in the 1800s; Andrew Jackson was an early effect. It’s been building and building. The Founders were afraid of someone like Trump, and with good reason. Populist demagogue. That’s why they had the Senate appointed, only let property holders vote, etc.
But I still agree with you that the RNC should negate Trump. But it won’t matter; they’re in big big trouble anyway.
And the people who are angry at the GOP members of Congress who they feel betrayed them would have been angry no matter what. I really believe that. Some of the anger is justified, but the remedy is better people in government, not the big middle finger that Trump represents. There are plenty of decent people in Congress trying—albeit imperfectly—to do what the people want (Cruz was one, but they rejected him cause they didn’t like his nose or his voice or some such). I feel a lot of the anger is over-the-top, drummed up by talk show hosts and pundits full of themselves and the sounds of the own voices, drunk on their increasing ratings and the building ire of their fans.
snopercod:
You’re welcome.
I think I had a draft of a post like this years ago, but (as with many drafts) I never found the right time to publish it, and it’s buried somewhere amidst all the other drafts.
As neo indicates the rise of primaries was a long-term trend that predated Nixon. As for Nixon, yes he was nominated five times. He won four times and barely lost the fifth (1960 vs. Kennedy).
Well, the idea that the “unlikeable and corrupt” Nixon still somehow managed to pull off the largest Presidential landslide in American history should give you pause to wonder if maybe there wasn’t something a little off with that analysis. Nixon didn’t become universally despised until some time later after the historians got done writing their versions of history and now it’s just a known fact that nobody ever liked the guy and nobody I know ever voted for him. It says so right in the history books.
Neo, I agree that a lot of damage is already done, but the Republicans need to stop the bleeding. The only alternative I can see for the party is for Trump to lose in a landslide, which probably isn’t likely. If that happened, I assume that the Republicans would reform the nomination process. If Trump is nominated and actually wins the presidency, then it’s his party. But it won’t be mine.
Wooly Bully:
Oh, I agree with you that they should do that. But I don’t think they will. The same lack of courage that they have showed in fighting the Democrats will show in their inability to fight for themselves.
FOAF Says:
May 6th, 2016 at 3:23 am
As neo indicates the rise of primaries was a long-term trend that predated Nixon. As for Nixon, yes he was nominated five times. He won four times and barely lost the fifth (1960 vs. Kennedy).
%%%%
With time — and death bed admissions — we now know that he won the 1960 election.
It was stolen from him by the MOB — ie the Chicago Mafia.
The gal who bagged the money — flatly admitted it.
Then she died.
Then, moments after Kennedy’s victory, Frank Marshall Davis celebrated the defeat of his arch enemy RMN — by knocking up Anne Dunham — and giving America today’s president.
Look at the calendar.
Barry Setoro HAD to be conceived ELECTION NIGHT to be born August 4, 1961.
Obama, Sr. was not even in sight.
Both men would’ve been denied a marriage license: bigamy.
The reason why people believe Nixon was corrupt is the same reason people believe Lerner and Hillary are innocent.