WikiLeaks Document Release http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL34222 February 2, 2009

Congressional Research Service Report RL34222 Presidential Nominating Process: Current Issues Kevin J. Coleman, Government and Finance Division

June 26, 2008

Abstract. Every four years, the presidential nominating process generates complaints and proposed modifica- tions, and the rapid pace of primaries and that characterized the 2000 and 2004 cycles will continue in 2008. Because many states scheduled early contests in the 2000 cycle, both parties subsequently created task forces on the process. For a time the parties pursued a cooperative effort to confront problems associated with front-loading for 2004. In the end, Democrats approved moving up state primary dates for 2004, but retained Iowa and New Hampshire’s early events; Republicans rejected a proposed reform plan. At the state level, the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) supports a regional primary plan that would rotate regional dates every four years. http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL34222 Presidential NominatingProcess: Government andFinance Division Updated June 26,2008 CurrentIssues Analyst inElections Kevin J. Coleman J. Kevin Order Code RL34222 http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL34222 national conventions. whether thepartiesarewilling tochange th proposals overtheyears, butmany impor politicalcommentators,and Congress, complicate theprocessby independen dele own variableinterestsconcerning their pursuit of a simple,obvioussolution,and par reworkingpartly the primary due toitscomplex design, system whichis frustrates observers aredividedonthebestapproach years andthe candidates, the voters, from nominating system, which has avoided wholesalechange criticismdespiteevery four Committee convenedahearing onS.1905September19,2007. 3487, H.R.1523,S.1905,and2024).The establishing a regional system ofprimaries Summary 1 For atimethepar forces ontheprocess. cycl earlyscheduled 2000 the in contests the2000and characterized 2004 cycles will proposed modifications,andtherapid also forfeitedtheirnational primary forJanuary 29,adatethatconflicte national conventionde August 25,2007,theDemocraticNational problems associatedwithfront-loading 50% attheconvention. by delegates,for eachofthe thereby vote vote delegation reducing each half a with decided onMayUltimately,DNC the 31,2008,to choosing nationalconvention Democratic partydelegate selection rules dictate that the first determining step in proposed sanctionsforany violations.W from the designated period for holdingdelegate selectionevents;and the Committee Nevada andSouthCarolina(Iowa andNew July 2006, theparty’s RulesandByla that wouldrotateregiona National AssociationofSecr the level, state the At plan. reform aproposed early rejected Republicans events; moving upstateprimary datesfor2004,but SeanForman, “FloridiansFaredReasona Front-loading isonly themostrecent In the110 Every four years, the presidential nominating process generates complaints and The Democratic Party year. again rules last calendar approvedchangesDemocratic its to The In Presidential NominatingProcess:CurrentIssues , June 4,2008,p.OP. , June th Congress, four billstoreform the nominating process by 1 legates because the legislature scheduled thePresidential scheduled legates becausethelegislature l dates every dates l fouryears. convention delegates by sche etaries ofState(NASS)s delegates couldnotbegi bly WellinDNCRulesCommittee Decision,” ties pursuedacooperativ for 2004.In theend,Democratsapproved ws Committee extended an exemption to anexemption ws Committeeextended academics haveofferedvariousreform tly scheduling dates. e, both partiessubse e, andcaucuseshavebeen introduced (H.R. Committee (DNC) stripped ofits Committee (DNC) pace of primaries and caucuses that and pace ofprimaries d withparty rules. Democrats ith the exception ofthesefourstates, exception the ith e system forchoosing delegates totheir press. After several decadesofdebate, several After press. tant dimensionsofreformdependon continue in2008.Because many states gate selection rules. The states further Thestates rules. selection gate to reform. The lack ofconsensusfor lack The reform. to Hampshire werepreviouslyHampshire exempted) tly tothepoliticalpartiespursuing their among a list of complaints about the among alistofcomplaints about retained Iowa andNewHampshire’s retained Senate RulesandAdministration Senate seatfulldelegationsstate foreach upports aregional primary plan n until Februaryn 5,2008.On duling a January 15primary. quently created task e efforttoconfront http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL34222 LegislativeReform Proposals Considerations...... 7EvaluatingCalendar Changes, 1988-2008 the Primary2008 Election System ...... 6 Table 1.DemocraticandRepublican ofTables List Figure 1.NumberofPr ofFigures List Contents ...... 3 ...... 7 esidential Primaries,1912-2008 ...... 4 National Conventi on Delegates, 2008 ...... 2 ....4 http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL34222 1994), p.513. primary votenationwide. Instead, theconventionchoseGovernorAd primaries held,captured64%ofthevotena 15 the of 12 in prevailed Kefauver(TN) Estes Senator race,forexample, Democratic delegates anddidnotthreatenparty cont electability, but the primary process did not usually determine the selection of potential their demonstrate to compete to which in primaries state specific more initially hadlittleeffecton winning the no dropped intheyears following War. theFirst World moveme the methodwhenProgressive had apresidentialprimary insomeform. delegatesparty from leaders torank-a the party’s nominating rules.The newru and bitterhall, credentials disputes inside, spurredcompletelyDemocratsto change a protesters confrontations betweenwar transforming eventoccurredattheDemo 1960sduetothepercepti the climate of the number of states with Democratic party primaries increased from 15 to 40; states 40; 15to from party increased Democratic primaries with ofstates number the party primaries inthestatesrosesteadily.of Between 1968and1992, the number Party alsomodifieditsrulesinthe comply withthenewlyto a primaries forthefi widespread popularparticipation 3 2 nominations.for the use ofpresidential the primary in a version of the primary in1901,butWisc delegates totheconventionsformany decad replace not the turnofcentury,did it hierarchy.primary Although the wasintrodu party the in control by vested that party caucusmeetings closed orin leaders 120 years, statedelegations tothenational feature, grew outofsweeping reforms a (Washington, Congressional Congressional William Crotty S.Jackson andJohn The numberofprimariesbegan toincr Pressure to change thenominatingPressure to system mountedintheturbulentpolitical The contemporary nominating system, in which primaries are the dominant arethe primaries The contemporary system, nominating which in Presidential NominatingProcess: , U.S.GuidetoElections, 3

Quarterly Inc., 1985),p.14. Current Issues early1970s. Subsequently, asshownin dopted nationalparty rules.TheRepublican nd theChicago policeoutside the convention III, III, dopted in the early 1970s.Forthepreceding However, many statesquickly abandoned on thattheprocesswasundemocratic.A party conventionshadbeenlargely chosen rol ofthestatedelegations. Inrol the1952 cratic convention in1968,whereviolent convention cratic nd-file voters,opening theprocessto party controloftheprocessforchoosing mination. Candidates onsin’s 1905 law was thefirsttoprovide law 1905 onsin’s tionally, butfailed towinthe nomination. rst time.Many stat Presidential Primaries andNominations Presidential Primaries lai Stevenson, who had won 1.6% ofthe won had lai Stevenson,who les transferred the power ofchoosing power the les transferred ease again after World War II,ease War again World after they but nt fadedandthenumberofprimaries es. Floridawasthefirststatetoadopt ced by Progressive reformersjustafter 3 rd ed.(Washington, 2 By 1916,atleast20states e partiesswitchedto often chose one or often choseone D.C., CQPress, Figure 1 Figure , , http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL34222 cancelled because onlybecause Georgecancelled qualified W.Bush plan tohold39. scheduled 32. primary in1912.In 2004, Democrats sche with RepublicanPartyto primariesfrom15 4 attention. toward rescheduling inotherstatesor importance of the earliest events inIowaHampshire and set and off New a trend highlightingmedia th caucuses, withthe presidentialcandidatessought suppor where states, the to contest nomination suspense ofthe the redirected Reform nominee. party leaderswhocontrolledblocs where old system, thedramaofchoosing the part system and,inturn,ledtochangesth in figures arefrom theNational Associ (Washington, CQPress,1998) Source: CQ Press,2000), p.66. and Richard G. Niemi, Although 32Republican primaries were sche 50 10 20 30 40 0 1912 The reformsofthe1970sfundamentally ch Harold W.Stanley andRichard G. Niemi,Harold 1920 4 Figure 1.Number of Presidential Primaries,1912-2008 For 2008,Democratshaveschedul 1928 Vital StatisticsonAmerican Politics2006-2006 1936 , p. 60, andpressreportsfor2000 2004 figures. For 2008, 1944 Democrats ation ofSecretariesState. 1952 CRS-2 e dynamics ofnominati 1960 e results.Thisnewdynamic boostedthe der tobetter attract y’s candidateoccurredattheconvention, duled, only 27wereactually held.Five were of delegates wouldbrokerthechoiceof 39, themostsinceintroductionof duled 38primaries, t directly fromvotersinprimariesand for theprimaries. S anged the structureofthenominating 1968 Vital StatisticsonAmerican Politics ed 37primariesand Republicans 1976 1984 Republicans on politics.Under the candidate andmedia ee Harold W. Stanley while Republicans (Washington, D.C., 1992 2000 2008 . http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL34222 adopted by theCommittee onMarch26, 1982,p.16. superdelegate category.superdelegate was outcome a questionableconvention will accountfor20percentofthos the superdelegates wereapproximately 14 7 6 5 and knowledge, couldalsohelpwith partybelievedthat leaders and elected officials,experiencepolitical given own their future nominees among party professionals superdelegates were introducedtopromot asacounterba superdelegates section ofthisreport).Following Presid onthe holders party office nominating andDemocratic leaders process(seepreceding changes rule were addedinresponseto presidential preference. candidate a category ofautomatic, fo Speculation aboutsuchanoutcomehas attheconvention chosen is nominee inconclusive primary season Some side. Democratic caseonthe the and quickly, been field hasnot calendar narrowthe was that that to expected primary raceasa afast-paced the entered Despite result. candidates and Democratic ofRepublican Acrowdedfield President. orVice President anincumbent include Conventions, 1831-2000 2,123 to1,150vote. See, forexample, Congressional Quarterly, open thevoting rulewas onthefirstballot.The upheld and Carter was renominated on a finished secondinprimaryvoting, andcaucus soug first ballot.ForcesforSenatorEdwardKennedy, who the on bound totheirpreference first timein party history, theconvention was party delegates. elected officials,theterm “superdelegate” is Democratic National Committee, PresidentCarterenteredthe 1980 convention with Republicans haveWhile asmall number ofau The following categories comprise the superdelegates: the categories comprise The following ! ! ! ! 1984 Democraticconventionwasthefi The not For thefirsttimesince1952,nominationcontestforbothpartiesdoes Presidents, and congressional leaders); and andcongressional leaders); Presidents, distinguished party leaders(inc Democratic Governors; all Democratic Members of the U.S.House and Senate; all members of the Democratic National Committee; , (Washington, CQ 6 unpledged could result in a “brokered” convention, wherebyconvention, the could resultina“brokered” lance to the influence of rank and file voters. The lance totheinfluenceofrankandfilevoters. 2008 Election Report of theCommissionReport onPresidential Nomination 5 The last Democratic nomination contest to feature e whoattendthe2008convention. delegates who are not required to declare a declare to delegates required whoarenot evaluating and selecting nominees. selecting evaluating and CRS-3 ent Carter’s defeat in 1980,thepartydefeat Carter’s added ent generally usedonly with respect to Democratic Press, 2001),pp.140-141. that hadsharply reducedtheinfluenceof luding former Presidents, Vice Presidents, luding former e party cohesionandto rally support for based ondealmaking andbargaining. percent of allconven cused attentiononthe“superdelegates,” considering aruletorequiredelegates tobe tomatic delegate slotsreserved forparty or and Democrats in the Congress. It the in Democrats was and in 1980,beforethecreationof observers have suggested that an observershavesuggested that ht todefeattheruleand attempt to throw aslim leadindelegate support.Forthe rst to include superdelegates, who superdelegates, rst toinclude tion delegates; they National Party 7 Initially, , http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL34222 308-310. according to the closeness of the race. ofthe closeness the according to preferences (witha15%threshold),theim proportionally Pr according tovoters’ assign Because Democrats * Includes 796superdelegates, whoare20%of 8 by March 7,by which time voters infewer than half the states had cast ballots. happened, the contest for thenominationonbot nomination ineither party as a resultallocated of voting were onthat date. Asit of 80% and Ohio onMarch7,between70% number ofdelegates tobese primariesandcaucusesthatspanne 16 of primaryits moved up the firstto Tuesday inMarch, resulting ina crowded schedule York alsoadvanceditsprimary by twodays moved itsprimary from the last Tuesday of delegates atstake,butnotwithresp system is confusing andunorganized. primary, respectively, butthey havefurt displaced Iowa their from andNewHampshire process, andby 1996sevenstateshadaba primary, however, failedbolster the to region’s political strength inthe nominating successfully organized in14 southernstat were unsuccessful.But Northwest organize regional primary eventsinNe of acollectiveeffortwithinsingle regi legislaturesscheduling earlier primary or cau Stephen J. Wayne, StephenJ. eulcn2301,191 2,118 2,380 4,234* Republican Democratic ! The 2000calendarwasthemostfront-loade decades two last resulted state from overthe calendar changes the ofthe Most to delegates. the Democratic National Committee fromstate),called the“add-on” an additionalnumberof National Convention Delegates,2008 Table 1.DemocraticandRepublican Calendar Changes,1988-2008 The RoadtotheWhite House lected. With lected. With the additionof Total Number of pledged Delegates delegates (one for delegates (onefor 8 CRS-4 in 1988,aMarchregional primary was delegates inprimaries caucuses and ect tothenumberofprimaries.California on of the country. In the1970s,attemptsto w England, theMidwest,andPacific w England, es. Thissouthern“SuperTuesday” regional her contributedtoaperceptionthatthe to thefirstTuesday ofMarch,andNew ndoned theevent.Noneofchanges esidential candida portance of the superdelegates increases superdelegates of the portance d thecountry andvastly increasedthe thetotaldelegates totheconvention. cus events,eitherindividually oraspart tothe same date (March 7). Ohioalso , (Belmont, CA,Wadsworth,2004),pp. prominent role as the first caucus first and asthe role prominent h sideswasdeclaredover inthepress the delegates needed toclaim the d ever with respect to the number d everwithrespecttothe every of fourmembers Total Needed forNomination California,NewYork,and te oruncommitted http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL34222 Union Leader August 19,2006,p.12. Democratic NationalConvention Committee,convention.”National Democratic Tuesday inFebruary orafterthesecondTuesdayin inJune the calendaryear ofthe national tiercaucusin first the states, andthedateof determiningnomination stagepresidential inthe party rulesstate:“No meetings, caucuses,conv between the firstTuesday inFebruary Democratic andthesecondTuesday inJune. national Iowa, NewHampshire, Nevada, andSouthCarolin to determine the selection of delegates. will notbeseatedat the 2008 convention if Democratic national (January 15) were notamong the states granted an exception to the timing rule, the (January BecauseFlorida 29)andMichigan Hampshire. New after week a followed 22,whileth January on primary wasnext, was scheduled for January 19,fivedays af and PuertoRicocouldbegin voting, followe New Hampshire. Beginning the third week of February, small states, the territories, the first week of February, followed by South Carolina and Nevada any time after Gannett News Service holding primariesandcaucuses theapprovalof ever.With front-loaded the 2008primary schedule,creating acalenda New Hampshire. Tuesday inFebruary,than amonthearlier down. Meanwhile,Democratsappr convention forapproval,hadnotthe was approved by wouldhave goneand the RNCrules tothe whole committee states inMarch,withthela largergroup of a four-month calendar,withthesmallest stat 2008). KnownastheDe for effect into required approvalatthena partytraditionally that has deferred tothe states onsuch matters. The change fora andcaucuses—afirst forprimaries dates set to aplan forceapproved task most front-loadedcalendarto 11 10 9 the 2012election. for a newsystem forchoosing nationalconven 3.The RepublicanJune party’scommittee rules approved a plan that wouldimpose process in2008,andDemocratsarelikely to Thefourexceptionstothespecifiedperiod fo NicoleGaudiano,“Primary Mo ScheduleThat Roger Simon, “DNC Ruling onFlorida Prim In 2006,theDemocraticNationalCommittee National party changes afterthe2000elec Republicans have already began evaluating the performance of the nominating havealreadythe Republicans of performance began the evaluating , August 28,2007,p. A9. , April9,2008. party hasannouncedthattheFl 11 Undertheplan,Iowa and tional conventionin August date interms of the num , as adopted by theDemocratic, asadopted NationalCommittee, during thespecified“window,” oved allowing states to hold contests onthefirst hold oved allowing statesto CRS-5 convention rulescommitteevotedtheplan 10 two new exceptions to the DNC rule for two new exceptions tothe DNCrule ter theIowa caucus.TheNewHampshire in 2000, with an exception forIowa in2000,withanexception and entions or primaries which constitute the first caucus states)may beheldpriortothefirst r holding initialdelegate selectioneventsare es voting first,inFebruary,by followed e SouthCarolinaandFlorida primaries laware Plan,itwoul tion delegates, knownasthe Ohio Plan, the respectiveprimary resultsareused rgest states voting lastinMay. Theplan follow oncetheprimariesconclude on d by separategroups oflarger states on process (the date of theprimarydate (the process inprimary ary a Crucial Test ofParty Power,” Test ary aCrucial ves RNCVote,” Del.EarlierWinsInitial a. Other statesarerequiredtoholdevents Delegate SelectionRulesforthe2008 tion led to an earlier start in 2004, the 2004, in tion ledtoanearlierstart r with theearlieststartandmost with r New Hampshirecouldvoteduring (DNC) again reviseditsrulesfor (DNC) orida andMichigan delegations ber of primaries. A Republican ber ofprimaries. 2004 (and wouldhavegone 9 Nevadacaucus the d havecreateda The http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL34222 to the2000election. cooperation ofDemocratsinputting theplanin itself.According topre the convention Republican NationalCommittee,therules four years. Tobeadoptedfor2012,the orderofthe The three successivedates. general electioncandidate. is likely tohave a vested interest inpres as theparties majorcontinue towinthe primary the to attributed system.long problems ofthe As some least at address also retain thelinkbetweenpopular to would need election. competitive candidatesforthefall theprimary afewnotableexceptions, systemWith hasproducedgenerally have general electionsandtheDemocrats two-party competitionforthepresidency since thereformsof1970s,presidential chosen attheconvention,eveninyears ma votersareusua nomination, rank-and-file process.Becauseamajority for the required ofdelegates is dominated leaders nominees. However,itdiffersmarkedly fro is indirect, relying onelecteddelegates ra areas.Thesystem orinsular andterritories states the in results voting the according to accomplishes itsfundamentaltask—these diminish theseandothernon-structuralcomplaints. even awholly newmethodofchoosing pa political culture than from electoral structure.system, Changes tothe nominating ofcomp choose torunareathirdcategory fundamental problem.Also,theroleof elections generally,unlikely and itis nominatingreformsthat would resolve such a complaints, Republicans alike.But some byaddressed jointly thena be from thedesign ofthenominatingcould system, and suchascalendarlength, the complex rules that govern the process. of theseason(eithertooshortor too long), ofcandidates who field the enter lengththe with race, the dissatisfaction Hampshire, leve complaints includelow complaints aboutthesystem c to reformthearguably undemocraticprocess Despite long-standingprimary complaints, system the existing routinely fo adopted Most stateprimarieswere Evaluating thePrimary System tional partiesif ls ofparticipation,thepr ontinue toarise.In add CRS-6 erving theprocessthatproducedavictorious presidency, however, oneparty ortheother the mediaandfieldofcandidateswho ther thanthepopularvotetodetermine the the role ofthemedia,andconfusionabout ss reports,Republicansplantoseekthe larger stategroupings wouldrotateevery rty candidates,wouldarguably dolittleto committee of the nationalconvention,and of committee — Republican nominees havewonsix nominees —Republican Someofthese perceived problems stem lly willing torally aroundthecandidate about low turnout, for example, about lowturnout,for applyexample, to llowing ruleschanges oftheearly 1970s rked by internalparty division.Finally, won threeingenerally closeelections. used to select nominees. However,other laints thatstemmorefromthecurrent plan will need tobeadoptedbyneed the plan will To besuccessful,any system arguably m the systemm the of years past,whenparty cooperation benefitte participationandca elections have been marked by strong elections havebeen lection ofgeneral to place in the states, as theystates, to placeinthe didprior edominance ofIowa and New ition to front-loading, ition election candidates election ndidate choice,and d Democratsand http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL34222 proposal onFebruary 12,1999. the National Associationof the change thenominating system forthe 2004 el parties. primary orstate states the orcaucus—to for selecting delegates but leaves the speci West duringWest March,Apr past tradition,”tobefollowe inthe presidentialpositions “would retain selection their process leading based on nominees onasingle day.primary Regional selecting participants with general election, the resemble would reaching plan, 1523 wouldincludeallcaucusesand primaries forIowa but wouldprovideanexception would establishfourregions andaseries region), oraregional system ofprimari each from andcaucuses(onestate systemprimaries interregional ofPresidential four years. by population(the Delawa arethosethatwouldgroup stat proposals proposals would set specific, staggered dates require lesschange, butthey wouldtake Reports ?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=210]. available). Adescriptionoftheplan Presidential Primary Plan,”retrieved fr than 300suchbillshave been introdu 15 14 13 12 establish a “window”for holding contests. resulting system: a national primary, regional primaries, and those that would years, canbegrouped inthreecategorie “NASS Backs Rotating Primary RegionalPresidential Dates,” David S.Broder,“CoordinatedPrimaries?” Congress hasnever approved legislation to National Association of Secretaries of Stat Nationalof Association ofSecretaries State election officials andState the national party committees (jointly) soughtto Severalbills have been intr those Most reformproposals,including vol. 29,no.4,February 15,1999. Legislative Considerations il, May, andJune. re Plan,forexample). Reform Proposals Secretaries of State(NASS) d by regional primariesintheEast, South,Midwest,and 14 UndertheNASSplan, oduced inthe110 ced sincetheadoptionofprimary. may befoundat[http://www.nass.org/index.php om NASS website onMarch9,2000(no longeromwebsite NASS CRS-7 different approaches. of dates for holding primaries and caucuses, and of datesforholding primaries es and caucuses. S. 1905 and H.R.3487 es andcaucuses.S.1905 reform thenominating process,although more e (NASS),e “State Offi es by geographic region, by or timezone, andNewHampshire.S.2024H.R. s according totheoveralldesign ofthe fic choice of date and method — either a either fic choiceofdateandmethod— plansandstandardizing proposals would 15 Washington Post for holding events.Morerecentregional Theregional orderwouldrotateevery introduced in Congress overthepast50 in introduced ection cycle. Aftertwoyearsstudy, of 12 Anational primary, the mostfar- in an interregional plan for holding for inaninterregional plan 13 A window plansetsatimeframe th Congress toprovideforan endorsedaregional primary Iowa andNewHampshire , March16,2000,p.A7. Election Administration Most regional primary Most regional cials Approve Regional http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL34222 might succeed in imposing order on a complex and controversial system. andcontroversial orderonacomplex imposing succeedin might method inanefforttocircumventCongress. parties whose interestsserved werenot by the new system might switch tothe caucus regional primariesor Congress toestablish Congress. Also,legislative actionmay choosing nomineeswithoutfederal oversight of campaigns, andthereluctanceofpot media’s roleintheprocess,influence process—tu nominating the presidential towhichsuch changesdoubt istheextent c whoarethe candidates ofselecting task whether an openquestion,however, Itis and, atleastintheory, promisesaresu sometimes causesconfusion,none uponthereformsof building continues, activists whocriticized the process inthe spring and summer. debate. Notably, avictory inthegeneral of implications encountered. Thelong-term climate, proposedchanges tendtoa season hasconcluded,whenobs ongoing scheduling problemsinstates primary subject to be date,whichmight le all at cycle election the forcandidates scheduling needs. Third, some states have a traditional primary date that determines other meet orto sessions legislative state accommodate to primaries schedule primary together withtheirstateprimary other reasons.First, electionsareexpensiv [http://rules.senate.gov/ the events.TheSenateRulesCommittee 17 16 association. delegates mayconvention be restricted by the parties’ constitutional rights of free effortsto maintain thatcongressional arguablypresidential elections, including presidential primaries, some observers 2007. The hearing recordmy befoundat [http://rules.senate.gov/hearings/ See William G. Mayer testimony beforetheSenate Rules Committee,at A federally mandatedcalenda Revision and nominatingpresidential experimentation system withthe Complaints aboutthe nominating system usually peak just after the election Although Congress hasauthor 16 17 For nearly twocenturies,thepar hearings/2007/091907hrg.htm]. ervers assesshowwellthe sy theless demonstrates the flexibility ofthe system r for primaries foravarietyr forprimaries might be resisted of ity toregulate thet lt that stems fromcompetitionandevolution. CRS-8 that holdasingle, combinedprimary. prescribe themethodsofchoosing national ential candidates toenter the contest. ddress the perceived problems recently ddress theperceivedproblems vels ofgovernment. held a hearing on S. 1905 onSeptember19, S. held ahearing on the 1970s.Thiscontinualrevision,which a newsystem could betteraccomplishthe of organized interestgroups, thehigh cost would alleviatebroa election often tempers hoice of most party voters. Even morein hoice ofmostpartyEven voters. not achieve the expected results. Were results. expected the achieve not e, andstatesoftenholdtheirpresidential to save money.save Second,somestates to Alternately,federally a systemdesigned change every fouryears, create could anationalprimary, state forexample, rnout, thenegative perception ofthe and might resistasystem imposedby suchadjustmentsoftenreceiveless ties havedetermined iming of congressional and stem functioned. Instem functioned. this A federally mandated der complaintsabout 2007/091907hrg.htm]. the viewsofparty theirmethodsof