PRIMARIES (Social Science)

Presidential and congressional primaries are intraparty election contests whereby candidates compete for the privilege of being the party’s general election nominee. Direct primaries in non-southern states originated with the Progressive Era of the early twentieth century as a way to move intraparty candidate selection away from corrupt state and local political bosses and urban machines. In southern states it was seen as a way to ensure continued political domination by one party. Although first pioneered at the local level, primaries spread to state and national offices and dominated candidate selection in U.S. Senate and House races by the mid-twentieth century. At the presidential level, reforms made after the contentious 1968 Democratic National Convention placed delegate selection, and hence the selection of the party nominee, in the hands of the party rank and file and away from party elites. This led to the proliferation and dominance of primaries in the presidential selection process. Primaries are generally considered a uniquely American institution.

TYPES AND TIMING

Participation and contest rules vary by state, party, and time. There are four general types of primaries: open, semi-open, closed, and runoff. In open primaries, voters choose the party’s primary in which they want to participate. Registered party members and independents who choose to participate can vote in a semi-open primary, though independents often have to change their party registration to that of party in whose primary they are participating. Only registered party members can vote in a closed primary. Primary runoffs, used especially in southern states, happen when no candidate receives a majority (more than 50%) of the vote. In a second primary or runoff, the top two vote getters face off. Runoffs may threaten a nominee’s general election chances if the opposing party’s candidate does not compete in a runoff. This potential disadvantage stems from the fact that one candidate has to expend resources on a second intraparty contest, while the other candidate can immediately shift focus to the interparty general election race.


A unique feature of the presidential nominating system is its extended and sequential nature. Primaries begin in New Hampshire, typically in late January or early February, and end with a slate of late states in mid-June. This serial process has given political elites and potential candidates the opportunity to move state primary dates up in the process, a procedure known as front-loading, to advantage their own political ambition or their state both politically and economically. Politically, early states have greater influence over who wins the nomination by sending signals to later voters about the viability and electability of the contenders and by helping to winnow candidates. Early states benefit economically due to increases in candidate spending, visits, mobilization efforts (including television ads), and media attention. Unfortunately, as the race progresses and it becomes clearer who the party nominee will be, the process produces disincentives for individual voter participation and reduces overall levels of voter turnout.

Congressional primaries also vary in timing and in the use of party endorsements. Some states schedule congressional primaries in early March and others as late as September of an election year. When states schedule presidential and congressional primaries on the same date, voter turnout levels increase. Some state parties attempt to influence voter choices through party endorsements. Endorsements may require candidates to meet a support threshold at the party convention to be placed on the primary ballot or may reward the top party convention vote getter with the first line of the primary ballot or with a designation as the party’s candidate.

Presidential and congressional incumbents seldom encounter a viable challenge in their primary bids, and therefore these races are rarely competitive. The advantage incumbents have in fund-raising, name recognition, and perquisites of office tend to discourage competition. Strong primary challenges to incumbents are more likely to emerge when the challengers’ chances of winning the nomination and general election campaigns are greater. Incumbent members of Congress who face strong primary challengers typically are those involved in a scandal, such as charges of unethical behavior, or those who stray from representing their constituents’ interests. Although a surprising number of incumbents are unlikely to suffer a primary defeat amid allegations of wrongdoing, their precarious position makes them much more susceptible to a general election defeat. At the presidential level, incumbents are often challenged when their presidential approval is low. Since 1972 and the post-reform era, no presidential incumbent candidate has been defeated during the nomination campaign. In contrast, the out party contest is always competitive in presidential primaries, though this is less the case in congressional races. In open contests where there is no incumbent running, both parties generally draw a long list of nomination contenders, and the contests are more competitive.

IMPACT ON VOTERS AND PARTIES

Primaries are candidate-centered contests where candidates act strategically, directly appealing to voters. Because party identification is not a voting cue, candidate attributes figure strongly in voter decision-making. Candidate-centered contests lead to intraparty factionalization as candidates directly compete against one another for voter support. Primary factionalization, however, appears to play at best a modest role in general election outcomes. Though early research in congressional and presidential races found that the party with the more divisive primary (defined as primaries with more contentious contests and usually based on margin of victory measures) loses votes in the general election race, late-twentieth-century models demonstrate little effect once candidate quality is considered. In a presidential contest, the party appears to heal from internal divisions as the focus of the race turns to the interparty general election fight; similar factors may be at work in congressional elections. Presidential research indicates that primary supporters of losers often turn their efforts to support the party or the party nominee in the general election campaign. At the congressional level, party activists who supported a losing candidate in a divisive primary were less active on behalf of the party nominee in the short term but still expressed interest in long-term party involvement. Thus primary campaigns are a unique opportunity for new party entrants, regardless of who they supported, to become mobilized and be a resource for general election party activity and other future party activity.

Next post:

Previous post: