Different Rules for Different Folks: The Effect of Primary Type on the 2000 Presidential Nomination Process

Authors

  • Priscilla L. Southwell
  • Mathew Manweller

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.2003.24.0.361-374

Abstract

This research examines both aggregate and individual-level data from the 2000 presidential primaries in order to test: (1) the effect of primary type on the distribution of votes across candidates and the eventual outcome of the state’s primary race; and (2) the extent of strategic voting in more open types of primaries. Multivariate analysis of aggregate primary results suggests that John McCain fared better in states with open or semi-closed primaries. A similar pattern is revealed in California’s “beauty contest” primary. Using ANES data, we also project various primary outcomes under open, semi-closed, and closed scenarios. In both “sincere” and “strategic” models, McCain, but not Bradley, gained in semi-closed and open primaries, but Bush was still the projected Republican winner in all types of primaries. Our analysis of general election behavior shows that independents were the most likely group to switch parties when their preferred primary candidate did not gain the nomination.

References

Abramowitz, Alan, John McGlennon, and Ronald Rapoport. 1981. A Note on Strategic Voting in a Primary Election. Journal of Politics 43:899-904. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2130645

Adamany, David. 1976. Crossover Voting and Democratic Party's Reform Rules. American Political Science Review 70:536-541. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055400173393

Aldrich, John. H. 1980. Before the Convention: Strategies and Choices in Presidential Nomination Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Alvarez, R. Michael, and Jonathan Nagler. 2002. Should I Stay or Should I Go? Sincere and Strategic Crossover Voting in California Assembly Races. In Voting at the Political Fault Line: California's Experiment with the Blanket Primary, eds. Bruce Cain and Elisabeth Gerber. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Atkeson, Lonna. 1998. Divisive Primaries and General Election Outcomes: Another Look at Presidential Campaigns. American Journal of Political Science 42:256-272. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2991755

Bernstein. Robert A. 1977. Divisive Primaries Do Hurt: U.S. Senate Races, 1956-1972. American Political Science Review 71:540-545. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055400267440 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1978347

Born, Richard. 1981. The Influence of House Primary Election Divisiveness on General Election Margins, 1962-1976. Journal of Politics 47:640-661. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2130630

Brasher, Keith. 2000. The 2000 Campaign: Michigan: Loss by Bush Forces Debate on Open Primaries. The New York Times, February 27, p. 33.

Cain, Bruce, and Megan Mullin. 2002. Strategies and Rules: Lessons from the 2000 Presidential Primary. In Voting at the Political Fault Line: California's Experiment with the Blanket Primary, eds. Bruce Cain and Elisabeth Gerber. Berkeley: University of California Press.

California Democratic Party v. Jones (99-401) 169 F.3d 646, reversed. June 26, 2000.

Cavala, William. 1974. Changing the Rules Changes the Game: Party Reform and the 1972 California Delegation to the Democratic National Convention. American Political Science Review 68:27-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1959739

Cohen, Jonathan, and Jon Sides. 1998. The Incidence and Importance of Crossover Voting in a Blanket Primary: Washington State Senate Elections, 1986-1996. Institute for Governmental Studies, Working Paper 98-6.

Galderisi, Peter F. 1982. Primary Reform as Participatory Incentive: Party Renewal in a Changing American Political Universe. S.I.: s.n.

Geer, John G. 1986. Rules Governing Presidential Primaries. Journal of Politics 48:1006-1025. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2131010

Gerber, Elisabeth R., and Rebecca B. Morton. 1998. Primary Election Systems and Representation. Journal of Law, Economic, and Organization 14:304-324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jleo/14.2.304

Gerber, Elisabeth R. 2002. Strategic Voting and Candidate Policy Positions. In Bruce Cain and Elisabeth Gerber, eds., Voting at the Political Fault Line: California's Experiment with the Blanket Primary. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gimbel, James G., Adam Hoffman, and Karen M. Kaufman. 2000. Open Primaries and Representation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA.

Gurian, Paul-Henri. 1993. Candidate Behavior in Presidential Nomination Campaigns: A Dynamic Model. Journal of Politics 55:115-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2132231

Hedlund, Ronald D. 1977-78. Crossover Voting in a 1976 Open Presidential Primary. Public Opinion Quarterly 41:498-514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/268410

Hedlund, Ronald D. and Meredith W. Watts. 1986. The Wisconsin Open Primary, 1968-1984. American Politics Quarterly 14:55-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X8601400104

Hedlund, Ronald D., Meredith W. Watts, and David M. Hedge. 1982. Voting in an Open Primary. American Politics Quarterly 10:197-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/004478082010002004

Hernson, Paul S., and James G. Gimbel. 1995. District Conditions and Primary Divisive-ess in Congressional Elections. Political Research Quarterly 48:117-129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591299504800107 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/449123

Haskell John. 1996. Fundamental & Flawed: Understanding and Reforming Presidential Primaries. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Kousser, Thad. 2002. Crossing Over When It Counts: How the Motives of Voters in Blanket Primaries are Revealed by Their Actions in General Elections. In Voting at the Political Fault Line: California's Experiment with the Blanket Primary, eds. Bruce Cain and Elisabeth Gerber, eds. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kenney, Patrick, and Tom Rice. 1984. The Effect of Primary Divisiveness and in Gubernatorial and Senatorial Elections. Journal of Politics 46:904-915. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2130861

Lengle, James I. 1995. Divisive Nomination Mechanisms and Democratic Electoral Prospects. Journal of Politics 57:370-384. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2960311

Lengle, James I. 1981. Representation and Presidential Primaries: The Democratic Party in the Post-reform Era. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Mapes, Jeff. 2000. Bush Forges Win Treading Basic Path. The Oregonian, March 2, p. D7.

McCann, James A., Randali W. Partin, Ronald B. Rapaport, and Walter J. Stone. 1996. Presidential Nomination Campaigns and Party Mobilization: An Assessment of Spillover Effects. American Journal of Political Science 40:756-768. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111793

McNitt, Andrew D. 1978, 1981. An Examination of Intra-party Competition: Gubernatorial and Senatorial Nominations in the United States. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.

Paolino, Philip, and Daron Shaw. 2001. Lifting the Hood on the Straight-Talk Express: Examining the McCain Phenomenon. American Politics Research 29:483-506. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X01029005004

Polsby, Nelson W., and Aaron B. Wildavsky. 1971. Presidential Elections, 3rd ed. New York: Scribner's.

Ranney, Austin. 1972. Turnout and Representation in Presidential Primary Elections. American Political Science Review 66:21-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1959276

Riker, William H. 1982. Liberalism against Populism. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.

Salvanto, Anthony M. and Martin P. Wattenberg. 2002. Peeking Under the Blanket: A Direct Look at Crossover Voting in the 1998 Primary. In Voting at the Political Fault Line: California's Experiment with the Blanket Primary, eds. Bruce Cain and Elisabeth Gerber, eds. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Samuels, Dorothy J. 2000. The Fight for an Open Presidential Primary. The New York Times, January 28, p. 22.

Sides, John, Jonathan Cohen, and Jack Citrin. 2002. The Causes and Consequences of Crossover Voting in the 1998 California Elections. In Voting at the Political Fault Line: California's Experiment with the Blanket Primary, eds. Bruce Cain and Elisabeth Gerber, eds. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Southwell, Priscilla L. 1988. Open Versus Closed Primaries and Candidate Fortunes, 1972-1984. American Politics Quarterly 16:280-295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/004478088016003003

Southwell, Priscilla L. 1991. Open Versus Closed Primaries: The Effect on Strategic Voting and Candidate Fortunes. Social Science Quarterly 44:789-796.

Stone, Walter J. 1984. Prenomination Candidate Choice and General Election Behavior: Iowa Presidential Activists in 1980. American Journal of Political Science 28:361-378. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2110877

Wekkin, Gary D. 1984. Democrat versus Democrat. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.

Wekkin, Gary D. 1988. The Conceptualization and Measurement of Crossover Voting. Western Political Quarterly 41:105-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/448459 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591298804100107

Wekkin, Gary D. 1991. Why Crossover Voters are not 'Mischievous Voters': The Segmented Partisanship Hypothesis. American Politics Quarterly 19:229-247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X9101900205

Downloads

Published

2004-01-01

Issue

Vol. 24: Winter 2003

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.

  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.

  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:

    1. Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;

    2. Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;

    3. Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

  1. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  2. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.

  3. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.

  1. The Author represents and warrants that:

    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;

    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;

    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;

    4. the Work has not previously been published;

    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and

    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.

  2. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.