DOCSLIB.ORG

The Frontloading of Presidential Primaries and Caucuses from the States' Perspective

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Frontloading of Presidential Primaries and Caucuses from the States' Perspective THE FRONTLOADING OF PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES AND CAUCUSES FROM THE STATES' PERSPECTIVE by JOSHUA T. PUTNAM (Under the Direction of Paul-Henri Gurian) ABSTRACT In the years since the McGovern-Fraser reforms fundamentally reshaped the presidential nomination process, a trend toward the early scheduling of presidential primaries and caucuses emerged. This frontloading phenomenon has led to nominations being decided earlier and earlier as states moved to have an influence over the process. While the motivation for this movement has been established in the extant literature, nothing has attempted to explain why some states are better able to shift the dates on which their delegate selection event. This research will seek to explain not only what separates states in this regard but also show, using a series of time series cross-sectional logistic regression models; that political and structural factors have a larger impact on obstructing some states from moving their primaries and caucuses than states simply being motivated to move. INDEX WORDS: presidential primaries, caucuses, frontloading, presidential nominations, concurrent primaries, divided government THE FRONTLOADING OF PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES AND CAUCUSES FROM THE STATES' PERSPECTIVE by JOSHUA T. PUTNAM B.A., The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1999 M.A., The University of Georgia, 2004 A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ATHENS, GEORGIA 2010 © 2010 Joshua T. Putnam All Rights Reserved THE FRONTLOADING OF PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES AND CAUCUSES FROM THE STATES' PERSPECTIVE by JOSHUA T. PUTNAM Major Professor: Paul-Henri Gurian Committee: Damon Cann Audrey Haynes Arnold Fleischmann M.V. Hood III Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2010 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research would not have been possible except for the two children who most motivated me to finish this tremendous endeavor. Thank you Aden and Harper. A huge debt of gratitude is also owed to my parents, Hugh and Eva Putnam, and my sister, Vandy, who have been with me from the beginning. Thank you all for the support you have given me not only throughout this process, but in life as well. I am nothing without my family. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my political science family. Thank you Paul and Audrey for all the guidance you have provided me during my tenure at UGA. Finally, thank you to everyone else who touched my life during and had an impact on this process. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................iv CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: FRONTLOADING FROM THE STATE’S PERSPECTIVE…..1 2 THE STORY BEHIND THE FRONTLOADING PHENOMENON………………..8 3 A THEORY OF FRONTLOADING………………………………………………..36 4 STATE GOVERNMENTS AND THE FRONTLOADING DECSION……………64 5 A FULL MODEL OF FRONTLOADING DECISION MAKING………………....97 6 THE FUTURE OF FRONTLOADING AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM………………………………………………………..122 REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………....131 APPENDICES A PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY CALENDARS, 1976-2012………………………..134 B VARIABLE OPERATIONALIZATIONS………………………………………...144 v Chapter 1. Introduction: Frontloading from the States' Perspective Should we move up? Should we stay put? Those are two of the questions that have faced states since the McGovern-Fraser reforms fundamentally restructured the methods by which the two major parties' presidential nominees are chosen during the final presidential election cycle of the 1960s. Part of the outcome of that process has been an irregular lurch forward over time as states began shifting their delegate selection contests as a means of influencing the nominations. Though there has been some ebb and flow to the movement from state to state in the cycles since, the product has been a compressed calendar of delegate selection events with a majority of primaries and caucuses at the very beginning of the presidential election year. That collective movement over time and the byproducts are together what has come to be known as frontloading All states, however, are not created equal in terms of frontloading. In fact, in the presidential nomination process, those states scheduled at the front end of the calendar are better able to have a noticeable impact on the outcome of the nomination race. Though the motivation to hold a contest early may be present across states, the desire and/or ability to reschedule those primaries or caucuses on a more advantageous date is not uniformly distributed across the fifty states. Why is it, then, that some states have shifted to earlier dates over the last four decades of presidential election cycles and others have either not moved at all or have moved temporarily only to move back to the original [later] date in a subsequent cycle? That is the question this research intends to explain. To this point, the literature regarding frontloading has established the motivation states have to move to earlier dates from a national perspective (Mayer and Busch 2004). Yet, that fails to explain the action from the level at which it is occurring, the state level. This research not only continues the shift in focus toward the state-level decision makers charged with scheduling 1 a state’s primary or caucus, but also broadens the scope of factors affecting that decision. Most importantly, while the extant literature establishes the pattern of motivation, it misses the deterrents that separate the states that can and do move from those that either cannot or do not shift the dates on which their delegate selection events are held. That more dynamic explanation of the frontloading process places particular import on the relationship between the state-level frontloading decision makers and the national parties in terms of the rules governing delegate selection. Given the Florida and Michigan situation that confronted the Democratic Party during the 2008 election cycle, establishing the extent of that relationship could have far-reaching implications in not only future cycles, but in future research. This dynamic theory of the frontloading decision-making process hinges on the notion of rationally-acting state actors weighing the costs and benefits of making a change to the date on which the state’s primary or caucus is held. If the incentives are sufficiently high, a state will be more likely to move. However, if the deterrents (structural and political) outweigh those benefits, a state will be more likely to stand pat and not change the existing law. The interplay of the costs and benefits are best typified by the decisions made in Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina during the post-reform era. Despite being a limited sample of the full array of issues attendant to the frontloading decision, these three states serve as a microcosm of the basic types of movement witnessed throughout this period and provide an example of the impetus behind some of the frontloading decisions made over the last ten cycles. North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia all share a border, yet have dealt with the timing of their presidential delegate selection events in very different ways. All three faced some motivation, if not pressure, to align the dates on which their contests were held given the push across the South during the late 1970s and into the 1980s to establish a southern regional 2 primary. Yet, all three states pursued different strategies for complying with national Democratic Party rules and ultimately determining the dates on which their delegate selection events would be held. Outside of those regional forces, it was the set of obstacles – not motivating factors – that helped or hindered each of those states from freely moving its delegate selection event. During the 1976 cycle, North Carolina scheduled its primary in late March – an early date within the first four weeks of the process after New Hampshire. Despite the primary having kept Ronald Reagan in the race for the Republican nomination against Gerald Ford in 1976, the Old North State – or its Democratic-controlled state legislature – moved its primary for 1980 to May, coupled with the state's primaries for state and local offices. Establishing that bond between the presidential contest and those for state and local offices would prove prohibitive to primary movement in future cycles. The effect that had was to force on the decision makers in the North Carolina in every cycle in which the two primary types were held concurrently to make a handful of decisions regarding frontloading. First, would the state move its primary to an earlier date? If not, there was no change, but if the decision to move was made, there was an additional layer to consider. The first option is to sever the bond between the presidential primary and the primaries for state and local offices and move the newly created presidential primary to an earlier position. State actors in North Carolina also could have moved the concurrent set of primaries to an earlier date. The catch there is that both options come with costs. The former requires the funding of a new election, while the latter could hurt the fortunes of candidates in down-ballot races in terms of tradition and turnout. The story during the same period in Georgia and South Carolina was altogether different. Both states held presidential contests that were separate from their nomination structures for state and local offices and continued to do so throughout the post-reform era. Simply because North 3 Carolina established that bond between the two levels of nominating contests, the state faced a barrier that Georgia and South Carolina never encountered. Namely, if the decision makers in the Tarheel State desired a change in the date on which its presidential primary was to be held, they faced the reality of having to fund an entirely new and separate election.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • “The Return of the Brokered Convention? Democratic Party Rules and Presidential Nominations.”
    “The Return of the Brokered Convention? Democratic Party Rules and Presidential Nominations.” By Rick Farmer State of the Parties 2009 October 15-16 Akron OH Front loading, proportional representation and super delegates are changing the dynamic of the Democratic presidential nomination. Since 1976 capturing the early momentum was the key ingredient to winning. Barack Obama’s nomination in 2008 demonstrates how these three forces are converging to re-write the campaign playbook. Front loading created a 2008 Super Tuesday that approached national primary day status. Proportional delegate allocations kept the race close when another system might have put the delegate count out of reach; and with a different result. Super delegates made the final decision. The 2008 Democratic presidential contests produced, in effect, a brokered convention. Without reform, many more brokered conventions appear to be in their future. Below is a discussion of how the reforms of the 1970s and 80s combine to produce this perfect storm. Then, the 2008 campaign illustrates the effects. The major reform proposals are examined. Finally some conclusions are drawn. Reforms of the 1970s and 80s American political parties grant their nomination to a single candidate at a national convention. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party nominations can be won with a simple majority of the delegates. Delegates are pledged through a series of caucuses and primaries. Both parties are following similar calendars but Republican Party rules result in a different type of contest than Democratic Party rules. Parties have met in quadrennial national conventions for the purpose of selecting a presidential nominee since 1832.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Nominating Process: Current Issues
    Presidential Nominating Process: Current Issues -name redacted- Analyst in Elections February 27, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov RL34222 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Presidential Nominating Process: Current Issues Summary After a period of uncertainty over the presidential nominating calendar for 2012, the early states again settled on January dates for primaries and caucuses. Iowa held its caucuses on January 3 and New Hampshire held its primary on January 10. These two states, along with South Carolina and Nevada, are exempt from Republican national party rules that do not permit delegate selection contests prior to the first Tuesday in March, but specify that these contests may not be held before February 1. Officials in Florida announced that the state would hold a January 31, 2012, primary, in violation of party rules, which prompted South Carolina and Nevada to schedule unsanctioned events as well. South Carolina scheduled its primary on January 21; Nevada Republicans originally scheduled party caucuses for January 14, but changed the date to February 4. States that violate the rules risk losing half their delegates, as a number of states already have. Every four years, the presidential nominating process generates complaints and proposed modifications, often directed at the seemingly haphazard and fast-paced calendar of primaries and caucuses. The rapid pace of primaries and caucuses that characterized the 2000 and 2004 cycles continued in 2008, despite national party efforts to reverse front-loading. The Democratic Party approved changes to its calendar rules in July 2006, when the party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee extended an exemption to Nevada and South Carolina (Iowa and New Hampshire were previously exempted) from the designated period for holding delegate selection events; and the committee proposed sanctions for any violations.
    [Show full text]
  • Democratic Change Commission
    Report of the Democratic Change Commission Prepared by the DNC Office of Party Affairs and Delegate Selection as staff to the Democratic Change Commission For more information contact: Democratic National Committee 430 South Capitol Street, S.E. Washington, DC 20003 www.democrats.org Report of the Democratic Change Commission TABLE OF CONTENTS Letter of Transmittal ..................................................................................................................1 Introduction and Background ...................................................................................................3 Creation of the Democratic Change Commission DNC Authority over the Delegate Selection Process History of the Democratic Presidential Nominating Process ’72-‘08 Republican Action on their Presidential Nominating Process Commission Meeting Summaries ............................................................................................13 June 2009 Meeting October 2009 Meeting Findings and Recommendations ..............................................................................................17 Timing of the 2012 Presidential Nominating Calendar Reducing Unpledged Delegates Caucuses Appendix ....................................................................................................................................23 Democratic Change Commission Membership Roster Resolution Establishing the Democratic Change Commission Commission Rules of Procedure Public Comments Concerning Change Commission Issues Acknowledgements Report
    [Show full text]
  • RESOLVED, Political Parties Should Nominate Candidates for President in a National Primary Distribute
    8 RESOLVED, political parties should nominate candidates for president in a national primary distribute PRO: Caroline J. Tolbert or CON: David P. Redlawsk From the beginning, the Constitution offered a clear answer to the question of who should elect the president: the electoral college. Or did it? Virginia delegate George Mason was not alone in thinking that after George Washington had passed from the scene,post, the electoral college would seldom produce a winner. In such a far-flung and diverse country, Mason reasoned, the electoral vote would almost invariably be fractured, leaving no candidate with the required 50 percent plus one of electoral votes. Mason estimated that “nineteen times in twenty” the president would be chosen by the House of Representatives, which the Constitution charged with making the selection from among the top five (the Twelfth Amendment, enacted in 1804, changed it tocopy, the top three) electoral vote getters in the event that no candidate had the requisite electoral vote majority. In essence, Mason thought, the electoral college would narrow the field of candidates and the House would select the president. notMason was wrong: in the fifty-seven presidential elections since 1788, the electoral college has chosen the president fifty-five times. Not since 1824, in the contest between John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, and William Crawford, has the House chosen the president. And contrary to Do Mason’s prediction, the nomination of candidates has been performed not by the electoral college but by political parties. Copyright © 2014 by CQ Press, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher Political Parties Should Nominate Candidates for President in a National Primary 137 The framers of the Constitution dreaded the prospect of parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Nominating Process: Current Issues
    Presidential Nominating Process: Current Issues Kevin J. Coleman Analyst in Elections January 27, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL34222 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Congressional Operations Briefing– Capitol Hill Workshop Congressional Operations Briefing and Seminar The definitive overview of how Congress works. This intensive course is offered as a 3-day public Briefing and as a tailored on-site 3, 4 or 5-day program. Public Briefings are offered throughout the year in Washington, DC. Space is limited. Dates, Agenda, Previous Faculty, and Secure Online Registration: TCNCHW.com On-site Congressional Briefings and Capitol Hill Workshops for agencies: CLCHW.com 202-678-1600 TheCapitol.Net All of our courses and workshops include extensive interaction with our faculty, making our courses and workshops both educational as well as mini- consulting sessions with substantive experts. Non-partisan training and publications that show how Washington works.™ Our Upcoming Schedule of Courses can be seen online on our web site or at TCNCourses.com. PO Box 25706, Alexandria, VA 22313-5706 202-678-1600 • www.thecapitol.net All of our courses and any combination of their topics can be customized for on-site training for TheCapitol.Net is on the your organization—we are on GSA Advantage, GSA Schedule, 874-4, Contract GS02F0192X. for custom on-site training. GSA Contract GS02F0192X thecapitol.net Courses approved for CEUs from George Mason University 202-678-1600 Presidential Nominating Process: Current Issues Summary After a period of uncertainty over the presidential nominating calendar for 2012, the early states again settled on January dates for primaries and caucuses.
    [Show full text]
  • Selecting Representative and Qualified Candidates for President
    Selecting Representative and Qualifed Candidates for President: Proposals to Reform Presidential Primaries Democracy and the Consttuton Clinic Fordham University School of Law Daisy de Wolf, Ben Kremnitzer, Samara Perlman, & Gabriella Weick January 2021 Selecting Representative and Qualifed Candidates for President: Proposals to Reform Presidential Primaries Democracy and the Consttuton Clinic Fordham University School of Law Daisy de Wolf, Ben Kremnitzer, Samara Perlman, & Gabriella Weick January 2021 This report was researched and writen during the 2019-2020 academic year by students in Fordham Law School’s Democracy and the Consttuton Clinic, where students developed non-partsan recommendatons to strengthen the naton’s insttutons and its democracy. The clinic was supervised by Professor and Dean Emeritus John D. Feerick and Visitng Clinical Professor John Rogan. Acknowledgments: We are grateful to the individuals who generously took tme to share their general views and knowledge with us: Robert Bauer, Esq., Professor Monika McDermot, Thomas J. Schwarz, Esq., Representatve Thomas Suozzi, and Jesse Wegman, Esq. This report greatly benefted from Gail McDonald’s research guidance and Flora Donovan’s editng assistance. Judith Rew and Robert Yasharian designed the report. Table of Contents Executve Summary .....................................................................................................................................1 Introducton .....................................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Voter Turnout in Presidential Nominating Contests
    The Forum 2015; 13(4): 597–622 Michael P. McDonald* and Thessalia Merivaki* Voter Turnout in Presidential Nominating Contests DOI 10.1515/for-2015-0041 Abstract: Presidential elections are conducted in two stages. The November general election is proceeded by a series of contests where delegates are selected to national party conventions, which is where the parties select their candidates for the fall election. These nominating contests’ political environments vary: the rules regarding who can participate; the levels of electoral competition, which are related to when they are held; and that other offices present on the ballot, if any. We explore the effects of these conditions on voter participation in recent presidential contests and generally find turnout highest in competi- tive and inclusive contests where other offices are on the ballot. Examining the 2008 American National Election Panel Study, we find primary voters are more ideologically extreme than general election voters, but there is little difference between voters in closed and open primary states. We suggest primary type has little effect on the ideological composition of the electorate because modern nomination contests are low turnout elections that draw only the most politi- cally interested. Introduction The most important elected office in the US is the president. As an indicator of the value the American electorate places upon the presidency, more Americans vote in the November of a presidential election year than at any other time. Yet, the general election is just the end of a long arduous road in the selection of the president. The modern presidential election begins with a series of party nomina- tion contests sometimes starting in January and continuing through the summer, where the political parties’ candidates for the general election are chosen.
    [Show full text]
  • Prediction Markets
    Wolfers.fm Page 37 Monday, June 8, 2009 3:12 PM Prediction Markets: The Collective Knowledge of Market Participants Justin Wolfers Associate Professor of Business and Public Policy Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia Prediction markets provide an information-aggregation technology applicable to a variety of topics, including political and financial risk. Because of the human idiosyncrasies identified by behavioral finance, prediction markets can fail, but historical data show them to be as accurate as traditional polling methodologies and far less expensive to establish and maintain. n this discussion, I will make three substantive Sports Prediction Markets. Interestingly, I claims about prediction markets. First, if mar- sports betting markets manifest many of the charac- kets really are efficient, as the efficient market teristics expected of an efficient market, and they hypothesis asserts, then the prices that come out of now allow participants to trade stock during the any market contain valuable information. To make game on the likelihood of a particular team winning. the case for this claim, I will use data from sports For example, Figure 1 shows real-time betting dur- betting markets. Second, prediction markets can be ing Game 6 of the 2003 National League Champion- used to track political risk, which can be a key factor ship Series (NLCS). This prediction market from driving investment performance. Third, prediction Intrade pays $1 if and only if the Chicago Cubs win markets can fail, so I will conclude my discussion this particular game. At the beginning of the game, by describing why prediction markets work and it looks as if the Cubs have about a 75 percent chance what causes them to fail.
    [Show full text]
  • Message from the Chair
    Volume 17, Number 3 www.fairfaxdemocrats.org March 2008 Hillary Clinton ran a hard fought cam- the Obama and Clinton volunteers for Message paign in Virginia, but Barack Obama has making this primary such a huge event, from the clearly inspired the voters. FCDC con- and thank you to Fairfax County’s voters gratulates both the Clinton and Obama who brought us some truly remarkable Chair Campaigns on their outstanding efforts. results today. Fairfax County’s Democrats appreciate the We have the momentum. We are living By Scott Surovell, attention you have given us and the excite- in an historic moment. Virginia is going to Chair, Fairfax County ment you have brought to our County. make history in November. We are going February 12 was an historic day for Fair- The Republicans were in hiding in Fairfax to elect a Democratic U.S. Senator, we fax Democrats. No one has seen this kind County today. They were not signing up are going to elect more Democratic Con- of Democratic energy in Fairfax County in volunteers. They were not building their gresspersons from Northern Virginia, and generations. We saw it in the FCDC elec- party. We were. Fairfax County will lead the way as Vir- tions. We saw it in the candidate rallies and Thank you to FCDC Vice Chair Sue ginia votes for a Democratic President for canvasses. We saw it at the DPVA Jefferson Langley for putting together a marvelous the first time since 1964. Jackson Day Dinner. Today, we saw what coordinated effort. Thank you to our Fairfax County Democrats: You ain’t that energy can do.
    [Show full text]
  • AMERICAN PRIMARY ELECTIONS 1945–2012 Thesis by J. Andrew
    OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE: AMERICAN PRIMARY ELECTIONS 1945–2012 Thesis by J. Andrew Sinclair In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California 2013 (Defended May 10, 2013) ii © 2013 J. Andrew Sinclair All Rights Reserved iii Acknowledgements I would like to thank the members of my committee for their aid and advice: Dr. D. Roderick Kiewiet, Dr. Christian Grose, Dr. Philip Hoffman, Dr. Jean-Laurent Rosenthal, and Dr. R. Michael Alvarez. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Alvarez for not growing weary of Sinclairs (of one kind or another) pestering him in his office over the last dozen years. Pieces of the analysis here could not have been accomplished without the aid of my classmates Thomas Ruchti and Peter Foley; fellow students Allyson Pellissier, Jackie Kimble, Federico Tadei, and Andi Bui Kanady made helpful suggestions and comments as well. Jeffery Wagner, Olivia Schlueter-Corey, and Madeleine Gysi helped collect and organize the data required for the multi-state analysis. Ryan Hutchison helped put me in contact with former State Senator and Lt. Governor Abel Maldonado. Dr. Morgan Kousser helpfully directed me to the Los Angeles Law Library. Dr. Jonathan Nagler and Dr. Alvarez provided helpful advice on the 2012 survey; the James Irvine Foundation provided generous funding for that research. Elissa Gysi provided very helpful advice for conducting the legal research; she also agreed to marry and tolerate the author as books piled up around the apartment. I would also like to thank my parents, Dr. J. Stephen Sinclair and Joan Sinclair, for… a list too long to enumerate.
    [Show full text]
  • Primary Candidates
    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Master's Theses and Capstones Student Scholarship Fall 2013 Run for your life: Spectacle primaries and the success of 'failed' primary candidates Sean Patrick McKinley University of New Hampshire, Durham Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis Recommended Citation McKinley, Sean Patrick, "Run for your life: Spectacle primaries and the success of 'failed' primary candidates" (2013). Master's Theses and Capstones. 175. https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis/175 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses and Capstones by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RUN FOR YOUR LIFE: SPECTACLE PRIMARIES AND THE SUCCESS OF 'FAILED' PRIMARY CANDIDATES BY SEAN PATRICK MCKINLEY THESIS Submitted to the University of New Hampshire in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts in Political Science September, 2013 UMI Number: 1524454 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Di!ss0?t&iori Publishing UMI 1524454 Published by ProQuest LLC 2013. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
    [Show full text]
  • Discuss the Merits of Presidential Primaries
    Discuss the merits of presidential primaries. June 2008 Q set for H/W – 1 week To what extent did the nominations of McCain and Obama strengthen the case for reforming the method of choosing presidential candidates?June 2010 Resources Bennett book – p46-58 Primaries and Caucuses evaluated, Edward Ashbee, Politics Review November 2008 Update: Why Hilary Clinton lost the primary race, Edward Ashbee, Politics Review September 2008 The 2004 Presidential Primaries, Edward Ashbee, Politics Review November 2004 Key reform article – In Search of Reform by William G Mayer http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MLB/is_1_53/ai_108694004/ For further reform plans, see also: - Frontloading HQ at http://frontloading.blogspot.com/ - Fix the Primaries - http://fixtheprimaries.com/ - Washington Post Op-Ed - http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-closed-primaries- further-polarize-our-politics/2011/09/02/gIQARBPb2J_story.html Articles (below)– - Economist I – p3-4 - Economist II – p5-7 - New York Times letters – p8-9 - New York Times Editorial – p10-11 - Primary reform blog post – p12 - CNN article – p13-14 - National Presidential Caucus – p15 - Primary Election Season too long? No – p16 - Primary Problems p17-21 Invisible primary and early state votes Fundraising Gallup poll leader New Hampshire Presidential Party leader in pre- at start of election Iowa Winner winner candidate election year year George H W 1980 Republicans John Connally Ronald Reagan Bush Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan 1980 Democrats Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter
    [Show full text]