Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-sk4tg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T05:33:12.038Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response to “An Incremental Approach to Presidential Nomination Reform” and “Meaningful Participation and the Evolution of the Reformed Presidential Nominating System”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2009

Paul Timmermans
Paul Timmermans
Affiliation:
University of Denver
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the January issue of PS, papers by William Mayer and by Lonna Atkeson and Cherie Maestas investigate reforms of the party nomination procedure for presidential candidates. In order to avoid the amplification of name recognition and early fundraising advantages, as these effects resulted from the “frontloading” of state nominations ('08 Tsunami Tuesday), broader “spacing” between primary dates may be required. But such an expansion of the sequential voting principle carries an unfortunate disadvantage ignored in the papers. This disadvantage is the, however unintended, consequence of candidates manipulating their program in accordance to methods through which votes are being cast.

Type
Forum
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 269
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 2009

In the January issue of PS, papers by William Mayer and by Lonna Atkeson and Cherie Maestas investigate reforms of the party nomination procedure for presidential candidates. In order to avoid the amplification of name recognition and early fundraising advantages, as these effects resulted from the “frontloading” of state nominations ('08 Tsunami Tuesday), broader “spacing” between primary dates may be required. But such an expansion of the sequential voting principle carries an unfortunate disadvantage ignored in the papers. This disadvantage is the, however unintended, consequence of candidates manipulating their program in accordance to methods through which votes are being cast.

Mayer argues that “problems of big cities” have been neglected because of “the dominance of Iowa” but fails to mention that highly urbanized states tend to use the primary method. And even though Atkeson and Maestas mention the fact that, as opposed to Clinton, “Obama concentrated … on the states holding caucuses,” they here also miss a bigger point. Only the latter candidate's team developed specifically a caucus strategy by recruiting volunteers and appointing captains. This was relatively cost effective in gathering the most delegates. Because the Obama strategist never placed his bets on the larger electorates, as the national tradition would have dictated, his soberly but rapidly produced television advertisements helped to rake in delegates from the rural caucus states.

I served as adjunct in West Des Moines during '07 summer and fall terms. Iowa students argued that their nomination method was superior as it requires more intense, rather than simply more, civic participation. From their perspective as taxpayers, caucusing is also much cheaper because there is no all-day staffing, or printing of ballots. Yet, their main concern was “public” campaign financing. If opt-out provisions remain in place, then outspending one's opponent on ads in caucus states is likely to become a sure indicator of success. Genuine reform begins by universalizing (caucus) methods as well as financing caps.