The Primary Primer
Well, presidential primary season is upon us here in the United States of America, with the Iowa caucuses coming up first on Thursday. It seemed appropriate in my role here as political ranter extraordinaire to go into a brief history or primaries, caucuses and how this all began here in America. Primaries were envisioned by the Founding Fathers, nor were political parties at all. Many of the founding fathers declared them to be evil, while shortly thereafter forming alliances with like minded politicians and then sought to bring other like minded politicians at all levels of government to join in their alliance. Thus making a party. While real parties didn't coalesce until the early-mid 1800s, primaries came about later. At that point, primaries were mostly to keep local provinces in line, more specifically, parties were machines to get certain people elected If voters were loyal to the party, they party paid them back in patronage jobs, places to live, severance pay and even welfare. In exchange, people had to vote for the candidates on the ballot of the party, and it wasn't done privately, names and votes were announced out loud, with a party monitor taking notes on who did and did not vote the "right way". As time went on, it all got more evolved and complicated, and well, it's getting worse.
When parties were merely local machines, they'd merely decide who would be on the ballot and who would not. Yes, there was national campaigning, but mostly it was a person or two whispering in the right ears and getting petitions and all that. OK, and bribes. But, the point was, sovereignty of the states was a key concern, and with local control over elections in state hands, state power was secured. After Civil War, there were more nationalized efforts to reform elections, and everything else, after the passage of the 14th amendment clarified voting rights for many and, well, there were some national issues that needed to be worked out. Parties found it easy to form, the big ones came together with true national organization, rather than just similar political fidelities. So, national parties organized real primaries, or at least something like real primaries. They helped the national party pick who was their nominee for president that year. Of course, local political machines (like Tammany Hall in New York, and others in Boston, Chicago and elsewhere) were still running most of the show but as the country got bigger and local machines waned in power, new primary methods came up.
At the start of the last century (scary to say that), the Progressive movement started to move against machines by using popular support for popular representation. So over the next few decades as voting got cleaned up, the process got actually accurate (funny thing, the only times when voting records were at about 90% was when corruption was at its highest and "vote early, vote often" was a real slogan). But, primaries at this point were just advisory, a sign of support. People would vote, according to party affiliation, in the respective primaries, for a candidate, but it held no real sway. Candidates were picked in smoke filled back rooms based on favors and all that. There were many times when a semi-popular candidate got shafted because the party elders decided they had their man whom they thought could win. Tactics of the few at the top mattered more than mere popularity at the current moment when the primary was held. It was all smart, but it wasn't particularly democratic in any real sense of the word.
All of this came to a head and changed after the tumultuous 1968 Democratic convention. It was decided to revamp the entire primary process and make it a real process rather than a reflection of party higher ups. George McGovern was asked to look into a way to reform the primary process. It should come as no surprise that McGovern, after helping to reform the entire primary, he ran for president and won. He won the 1972 Democratic primary (and is all wonderfully documented in the book Fear and Loathing: on the Campaign Trail '72 read it now). From 1972 onward, New Hampshire and Iowa had the first primaries, in an effort to get these over looked states some kind of political clout in the country.
So we have the system we are all familiar with, or at least somewhat familiar with. Iowa and New Hampshire have the first primaries and the others have theirs on various days in the early parts of the year of election. This year, Iowa is pushing the edge of the year by having theirs on January 3 (rant on that coming), New Hampshire on January 8, and February 5, 22 states will be having their primaries on. That day, called Tsunami Tuesday by many and "Super Duper Tuesday" by one guy who writes for wikipedia, will account for 2064 primary votes. Note a candidate needs 2184 votes in the primary to be named the nominee. However, with so many votes available on the same day, it's thought there may be no clear majority winner by the time the convention rolls around on August 25-28. If there is no majority, we might get back to the brokered convention and deals being made to decide the candidate. Of course, unlike times past, there will be binding popular support for some candidates. There will be candidates who are popular, and not just on the right few days we have designated in the past. Think about John Kerry, he was not very popular by the time the convention came around, but he was good in Iowa and New Hampshire and he had the votes and bandwaggoning happened. (Coming soon on a rant, a defense and why we have primaries and all of that). And with how divided the party is over the candidates, it could be a bloody convention.
And that's always fun to watch: it's free and the blood's real.
So it is written, so do I see it.
When parties were merely local machines, they'd merely decide who would be on the ballot and who would not. Yes, there was national campaigning, but mostly it was a person or two whispering in the right ears and getting petitions and all that. OK, and bribes. But, the point was, sovereignty of the states was a key concern, and with local control over elections in state hands, state power was secured. After Civil War, there were more nationalized efforts to reform elections, and everything else, after the passage of the 14th amendment clarified voting rights for many and, well, there were some national issues that needed to be worked out. Parties found it easy to form, the big ones came together with true national organization, rather than just similar political fidelities. So, national parties organized real primaries, or at least something like real primaries. They helped the national party pick who was their nominee for president that year. Of course, local political machines (like Tammany Hall in New York, and others in Boston, Chicago and elsewhere) were still running most of the show but as the country got bigger and local machines waned in power, new primary methods came up.
At the start of the last century (scary to say that), the Progressive movement started to move against machines by using popular support for popular representation. So over the next few decades as voting got cleaned up, the process got actually accurate (funny thing, the only times when voting records were at about 90% was when corruption was at its highest and "vote early, vote often" was a real slogan). But, primaries at this point were just advisory, a sign of support. People would vote, according to party affiliation, in the respective primaries, for a candidate, but it held no real sway. Candidates were picked in smoke filled back rooms based on favors and all that. There were many times when a semi-popular candidate got shafted because the party elders decided they had their man whom they thought could win. Tactics of the few at the top mattered more than mere popularity at the current moment when the primary was held. It was all smart, but it wasn't particularly democratic in any real sense of the word.
All of this came to a head and changed after the tumultuous 1968 Democratic convention. It was decided to revamp the entire primary process and make it a real process rather than a reflection of party higher ups. George McGovern was asked to look into a way to reform the primary process. It should come as no surprise that McGovern, after helping to reform the entire primary, he ran for president and won. He won the 1972 Democratic primary (and is all wonderfully documented in the book Fear and Loathing: on the Campaign Trail '72 read it now). From 1972 onward, New Hampshire and Iowa had the first primaries, in an effort to get these over looked states some kind of political clout in the country.
So we have the system we are all familiar with, or at least somewhat familiar with. Iowa and New Hampshire have the first primaries and the others have theirs on various days in the early parts of the year of election. This year, Iowa is pushing the edge of the year by having theirs on January 3 (rant on that coming), New Hampshire on January 8, and February 5, 22 states will be having their primaries on. That day, called Tsunami Tuesday by many and "Super Duper Tuesday" by one guy who writes for wikipedia, will account for 2064 primary votes. Note a candidate needs 2184 votes in the primary to be named the nominee. However, with so many votes available on the same day, it's thought there may be no clear majority winner by the time the convention rolls around on August 25-28. If there is no majority, we might get back to the brokered convention and deals being made to decide the candidate. Of course, unlike times past, there will be binding popular support for some candidates. There will be candidates who are popular, and not just on the right few days we have designated in the past. Think about John Kerry, he was not very popular by the time the convention came around, but he was good in Iowa and New Hampshire and he had the votes and bandwaggoning happened. (Coming soon on a rant, a defense and why we have primaries and all of that). And with how divided the party is over the candidates, it could be a bloody convention.
And that's always fun to watch: it's free and the blood's real.
So it is written, so do I see it.