February 02, 2008 11:37 pm
—
By Mike Pound
mpound@joplinglobe.com
Believe it or not there was a time in this country when presidential candidates didn’t “run” for the office.
The idea of actually campaigning for political office was considered sort of tacky.
But, according to Tom Simpson, professor of political science at Missouri Southern State University, that all changed with the introduction of the presidential-primary system.
“Primaries really grew out progressive attempts in the late 1800s and early 1900s to reform the system and take the process out of the smoke-filled back rooms,” Simpson said.
Prior to the creation of the primary system, the average citizen really had very little say in presidential nominating procedures. Most candidate decisions were made by powerful party bosses. Prior to 1820, in fact, presidential candidates were selected by members of Congress. That method was replaced in 1832 with the national convention, where party delegates gathered and nominated a presidential candidate.
In the late 1800s, people began searching for a way to find a presidential candidate who better reflected the attitudes of the rank-and-file party members rather than just the political bosses, and the primary system was born.
Oregon, in 1910, became the first state to create a presidential primary where the state’s delegates to the national convention were bound to support the winner of the primary. By 1912, there were 12 states holding primaries and 20 by 1920.
Simpson said, while the early presidential-primary system served to bring some degree of local control to the nominating method, it did not eliminate the “smoke-filled, back-room” influences of political bosses. It wasn’t until 1968, after the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, that parties began a serious look at reforming the procedure. At the Chicago convention, Democrats wound up nominating Vice President Hubert Humphrey despite the fact that Sen. Eugene McCarthy had racked up a number of primary victories and appeared to have substantial support among many party members.
After the Chicago convention, the Democrats appointed a commission — led by Sen. George McGovern who ironically would be the party’s nominee in 1972 — to reform the primary system and encourage greater participation at the state level. In order to comply with party requirements, more states opted to be the hosts of their own presidential primaries. The Republicans later joined the Democrats in requiring more state primaries.
Because the major political parties on the local level are allowed a say on exactly how their state primaries will be run, the systems may differ somewhat from state to state, Simpson said.
Some states have a “winner-take-all” approach in which the candidate who wins the primary is guaranteed all the delegate votes to the national convention. Other states only award a percentage of delegates to candidates depending on how they finish and their support among party-elected convention delegates.
The approaches sometimes do lead to a complicated and at times confusing process, with at times unanticipated outcomes, which is not always a bad thing, Simpson said.
“There is no grand design for the primaries,” he said.
But with no grand design, it’s pretty hard, Simpson said, to measure the system’s success or lack of success.
“The media sometimes creates more trouble (with the primary system) than anyone by turning them (the primaries) into horse races so it’s difficult to get a real substantial discussion of the issues,” Simpson said. “The so-called debates are nothing more than a chance for candidates to issue talking points.”
Not since 1976, when the GOP nominated Gerald Ford over Ronald Reagan, has an identity of a party’s candidate been in doubt going into the convention. The primary season for the most part has done what it was intended to do, which is have a candidate selected before a party’s national convention. And while Simpson said he would love to see a party convention where the nominee was yet in doubt, he doesn’t think that will happen this year, although he also doesn’t think either party’s race will be over after this Tuesday.
“I think after Super Tuesday, Hillary and Barack will still be standing, and so will McCain and Romney,” he said.
One aspect of the primary system that bothers Simpson is the so-called “open primary” system used in states such as Missouri.
In an open primary, a person is free to vote for a candidate despite the voter’s political affiliation. In Missouri, for example, a Democrat can walk into a polling place, request a Republican ballot and vote for a Republican candidate. The result, Simpson said, turns the primary into more of a beauty contest. It also lends itself to a little political mischief. If a voter is fairly confident in his party’s nominee, there is nothing to prevent him from casting a vote for the weakest candidate of the opposition party.
“It really doesn’t make sense,” he said. “A voter (from one party) and a bunch of his friends can vote for the biggest lunatic (from the other party).”
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.