On 7 Nov. 2000, Americans will flock to the polls to vote for the Democratic or Republican tickets, or for one of the independent candidates still on the presidential ballot. They will also elect their US representatives, one-third of US senators, and a large number of state officials. Campaigns are already in full swing but aside from high-profile ones such as Hillary Rodham Clinton’s in New York, media attention has essentially been focused on the presidential "race." Yet until next summer the candidates will merely be seeking their party’s "nomination," striving to prove that he is the best placed to win the White House against whoever will be nominated by the other major party. 

If the presidential campaign as a whole is commonly likened to a race, it is the campaign for the nomination that really deserves the metaphor. It is even a hurdle race, one which a lot of participants enter early but gradually drop out of. So few are still competing in the end that there is little if any suspense. The hurdles are the primaries and caucuses organized by the two major parties in all fifty states and in the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The very first hurdle is set in Iowa (on 24 Jan. this year), the second in New Hampshire (1 Feb.). The next hurdles are placed increasingly close — in time but not necessarily in space. On 7 Ma., when fourteen states hold primaries and caucuses, they make up a genuine climbing wall; and in the week from 7 to 14 Ma., there are similar hurdles in no fewer than half of the states. After the very last primaries (on 6 June), the finishing line will be in sight: in Philadelphia for the Republicans (from 31 July), in Los Angeles for the Democrats (from 14 Aug.). Indeed during the two national conventions, each party will officially disqualify all participants but one, triumphantly proclaimed the nominee and entrusted with the mission of carrying the party’s banner to the White House. After the national conventions a new race will begin, this time pitting a Democratic "ticket" (featuring the presidential nominee and his "running mate," running for vice-president) against its Republican counterpart — and against any number of independent or third-party candidates who might still be eligible and willing to compete, in what can only be a token participation. 

This article is devoted to the race for the nomination. It aims to grapple with the virtually impossible task of clarifying the terribly arcane delegate-choosing system, a system that few American citizens — let alone Europeans — can claim to have a clear notion of.

A highly decentralized — and therefore complex — system

The United States began their life in 1776 as 13 independent states: the federal Constitution, drafted in 1787 and approved by the states in 1787-88, did not create a centralized nation. It was only after the Civil War (1861-65) that the name United States became a singular: it took some 80 years for the states to fully acknowledge the "supremacy clause" of the US Constitution, which lays down the principle that federal decisions (the US Constitution as well as federal laws and treaties) may nullify any state decisions inconsistent with them. Thus the first thirteen states began as sovereign entities, and while the national institutions have defined a sphere of sovereignty for the US Government, they have not deprived the states of all their prerogatives.

Such a development has had important repercussions as regards election rules: from the very outset, responsibility for defining them was largely left to the states. Before universal suffrage became the rule (for US citizens over 18 years of age), each state was free to set the voting qualifications that its citizens would have to meet, and in each state voter eligibility to participate in federal elections depended on these rules. Today, the fifty state legislatures still regulate the first stage of the presidential election, namely the primaries and caucuses staged in their state: this has naturally produced very different systems. 

The complexity has been increased by the fact that the two major American parties are run at the state and local levels essentially. For both the GOP and the Democrats, the statewide decision-making event is the state convention. But each state is divided into (congressional) "districts," then into "counties," themselves subdivided into "wards" (often used as legislative units for local elections); a ward is made up of several "precincts." The precinct is the basic organizational unit for both major parties, that in which the rank and file may make themselves heard — especially at election time. The party’s life is ruled by bottom-to-top or top-to-bottom relationships between these organizational strata. 

Only the choice of two office-holders — the president and vice-president of the United States — requires crossing state boundaries; all other officials, including the state’s representatives in the federal Congress, are nominated and elected at the state, district or ward levels. Thus, technically, a national stratum in party organization is needed every four years only. That organizational unit, called the national committee, must be felt to be the emanation of the state and local party organizations. Its decision-making event is the national convention, which is held in the summer preceding a presidential ballot: the party "ticket" and platform are finally approved there.

For this decision-making event to really be the emanation not only of the state party leadership but of the rank and file, the delegates to the national convention are chosen — most of the time elected — by party members and sympathizers at the state or local levels. Broadly speaking, two methods can be used to enable the rank and file to pick their delegates: the caucus, which is staged at the precinct level, and the primary, organized at the state level. The choice is made by the state party, but the party’s decision is often formally approved by the state legislature. 

Do the major parties in each state always agree on the delegate-selecting method? They do most of the time, but not always: this year, for instance, the South Carolina Republicans hold a primary and the Democrats a caucus. It may also happen (more frequently) that both parties do make the same choice but stage their respective events on different dates: this year, the Hawaii Republicans hold their caucuses on 7 Feb. while their Democratic counterparts hold theirs just a month later.

All in all, six times as many primaries as caucuses are scheduled to be organized by the state parties in the first stage of this year’s presidential campaign — the race for the nomination.

The race for delegates

The race for the nomination can be depicted in three ways, according as one identifies with a presidential hopeful, with the (state) party, or with the average voter. 

What the candidate needs is the support of a sufficient number of delegates to the national convention of his/her party — at most, half of them. Since nowadays delegates elected at the state level are pledged to a candidate, i.e. commit themselves to voting for him/her at the convention as long as he/she remains in the race, the presidential hopeful must strive to win as many of these delegates as he/she possibly can. To do so, he/she must carry a large number of primaries or caucuses, or at least have a good showing. This is especially important in the larger states, which are allocated a high number of national-convention delegates. To win delegates, the candidate must convince party members and sympathizers that his/her stand on what is usually referred to as "the issues" is also their own, that he is prepared to carry out policies they would approve of, regarding — this year —the future of Social Security, the role of the federal government in education, whether this year’s expected federal surplus should be used to cut taxes or reduce the federal debt, and other such matters. Indeed, the delegates any candidate needs to carry the national convention are picked or elected by the rank and file in the primaries or (district) caucuses in each state. 

As for the (state) party, its goal is to make sure that its stand on the issues will be represented and defended at the national convention. Thus the state party must seek (1) to get as many of the candidates as possible to come to the state, outline their views, and express commitments; (2) to "give" the preferred candidate enough delegates for him/her to have a chance to win the nomination; and (3) to attract media attention. These concerns are shared whichever the party. 

The rank-and-file voter, provided he/she is a registered Republican or Democrat, is given a say in the nomination process. The party’s standard-bearers are no longer appointed by the leadership, as was the case in the 19^th and much of the 20^th century, roughly until the Watergate scandal sparked a demand for democratization of party politics. Although party officials still have significant influence as "super delegates" (each national committee reserves a number of national-convention seats and votes for elected party officials), a majority of the delegates are actually chosen by people who hold no specific responsibilities. The average party voter cares little about the delegates themselves: what he/she is interested in is helping his/her favorite candidate win the nomination. Therefore in most states voters cast their ballots for a slate of delegates pledged to a candidate. Through them, it is actually the candidate that the voter is backing.

Two remarks are worth making at this point: 

(1) "Registered" Republican or Democrat does not necessarily mean "card-carrying" Republican or Democrat: in the US, voters have to register before every election and when they do, they may register as Republicans, Democrats or independents. In most states, participation in party caucuses or primaries is reserved for those voters who have identified with the party. A few states, such as Michigan, do hold "open primaries," in which voters of all persuasion are free to take part; there are no "open caucuses," however.

(2) Proportional representation is the system adopted by most state parties as regards the distribution of pledged delegates: a candidate who has polled 25 percent of the statewide party vote is entitled to 25 percent of the delegates to the national convention allocated to the state. But the winner-take-all system is implemented by a few states: in this case, the candidate who has polled the most votes in the state primary or district caucuses is entitled to all the state’s delegates. Finally, in a number of states voters are not asked to vote for a candidate, only for delegates: the latter have complete freedom of action at the national convention. 

Caucuses and primaries

It is often said that the main difference between a caucus and a primary is that only the latter is a secret ballot. Even such a simple assertion is not quite right: in a number of states, like Iowa, the forms filled out by Republican caucus-goers in the "straw poll (i.e. non-binding vote) for president" are filled out in a secret ballot. Iowa Democrats, however, do not hold a straw poll: caucus attendants are invited to join a "preference group," i.e. a group of participants formed either in support of a candidate or uncommitted. Only those candidates whose preference groups gather at least 15 percent of the attendants is eligible to win delegates at the county convention. These examples are meant to suggest the variety of methods, implemented at the discretion of the state party.

A chief distinction between caucuses and primaries lies with the voting area. A primary, whether open or closed, is an election organized statewide. When the media allude to the Iowa caucuses, they refer to the meetings that are held in the state’s 2,134 precincts. Every one of the precinct’s registered Republicans on the one hand, registered Democrats on the other, are invited to participate. 

As for the media, the outcome is much the same: the returns of each precinct caucus are phoned in to the state party, which releases them to the press; the same is done with the returns of a primary. Thus the media may publish two categories of figures for each party: (1) the percentage of votes polled by each of the candidates who "entered" the primary or caucus, i.e. who was on the ballot; (2) after a primary only, the number of national-convention delegates each presidential hopeful has won. 

These remarks beg for more clarification: first, not all candidates choose to enter all primaries and caucuses. Not "entering" may be a tactical choice: if a candidate assumes that his/her showing is likely to be poor in a given state, which might hurt his/her image, he/she may prefer to skip the event altogether, and spend more time, energy and money campaigning in a state where he/she stands a chance of capturing a significant number of delegates. It may also result from the rules adopted by the state party regarding eligibility. Naturally these rules can be quite democratic: thus in New Hampshire, anyone eligible to become president (i.e. who is at least 30 years of age, is an American-born citizen, and has resided in the US for at least 14 years) can enter the (Republican or Democratic) primary; admittedly, he/she must be willing to spend $1,000, but the state has decided that any would-be candidate who could not afford the expense "may, after proving indigence, have his/her name placed on the presidential primary ballot by filing with the secretary of state 10 primary petitions from each county of the state signed by registered voters of the party who are domiciled in New Hampshire" (<http://www.nh.com/primary/history/introduction/html>). In many states, the parties require a (highly variable) number of signed petitions for authorizing a would-be candidate to be put on the ballot. Given the variety of rules adopted here and there, some are bound to be questionable. This year the New York State Republican Party has devised rules so obviously aimed discriminating in favor of George W. Bush that other GOP presidential hopefuls, John McCain and Steve Forbes, finding themselves excluded from the ballot, have filed a suit against the state party for discrimination.

Now why are statistics regarding the distribution of committed delegates unavailable at the end of a precinct-caucus day? Because the precinct caucuses are but the base of an organizational pyramid: they will be followed by the party’s county conventions (due to meet on 4 Ma. in Iowa), district caucuses (29 Apr.) and state conventions (10 June). It is only the district caucus results that determine the distribution of national-convention delegates. As for precinct caucus-goers, theyselect the people who will represent the precinct at the county convention of the party.

To put it in a nutshell, caucuses emphasize party organization and work. The Iowa precinct caucuses are not devoted merely to the straw poll or the selection of county-convention delegates; they are also forums of discussion during which the rank and file can express themselves regarding the party platform: though the initial platform drafts are not worked out until the county convention, the groundwork is laid through resolutions discussed and voted on at precinct level. Thus the caucus method tends to be chosen by state parties which either want to stimulate grassroots activity, or else want to keep control over the rank and file.

Current campaign-related issues

The most controversial feature of the current race for the nomination is known as "front-loading." The phenomenon, which began four years ago but has accelerated this year, has consisted, for a number of state legislatures or state parties, in trying — not always successfully — to move up their primary or caucuses to an increasingly early date. In 1996, it caused the citizens of more than two-thirds of the states to have cast their votes by the end of March already. As suggested earlier, this trend essentially derives from the states’ wish (1) to enable their citizens to make their choice at a time when all or most presidential hopefuls are still in the race, and (2) to have more weight in the final outcome, the national conventions. Virtually all of the early primaries or caucuses lead to some candidates’ decision to quit because their poor showing makes the race both useless and unaffordable as far as they are concerned. Thus in the states which hold their primaries/caucuses latest, the citizens have a much-reduced number of candidates to choose from. Besides, a front-runner is very likely to have emerged, and he often already has a sufficient number of delegates committed to him to carry the national convention easily. Under these conditions, the citizens’ vote is virtually worthless, few journalists cover the events, and the state loses a chance to be in the limelight; hunger for media-related publicity is a major reason why states or state parties pick an early date for their primaries and/or caucuses.

Indeed the two states which have most successfully captured media attention over the past two decades are Iowa and New Hampshire. Since the mid-1970s, when their precinct caucuses were moved to the very beginning of the presidential campaign, Iowans have enjoyed watching many well-known candidates as "they’ve kissed pigs, munched on chicken dinners, traipsed through union halls and put untold thousands of miles on rented vans," according to a state-run Web site (<http://www.iowapulse.com>). As for New Hampshire, to go on holding the very first primary, it has passed a statute stipulating that "The presidential primary election shall be held on the second Tuesday in March or on the Tuesday at least seven days immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election, whichever is earlier, of each year when a president of the United States is to be elected." (<http://www.nh.com/primary/enter.html>, italics mine). This statute has justified New Hampshire’s decision to move up its primary from 20 Feb. in 1992 and 1996, to 1 Feb. in 2000, so that it would be held before Delaware’s and South Carolina’s. 

Every four years, the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire set off the official campaign for the nomination draws sarcastic comments and bitter complaints expressed in newspaper columns. Indeed neither state is representative of the United States: both are overwhelmingly white (96.5 percent of the population of New Hampshire is White, 0.7 percent Black, 1.2 percent Asian and 1.5 percent Hispanic), conservative, and rural. Yet this year Orrin Hatch and Gary Bauer put an end to their bids for the presidency because they had fared badly in one or both states. Might they not have stayed in the race if more urban, ethnically- and economically-diverse states had held their caucuses or primaries first? 

The negative repercussions of front-loading are threefold: it compels candidates to begin campaigning earlier, which drives campaign costs up significantly. Contributions to this year’s presidential campaigns, at least on the Republican side, have not been even — to say the least: Governor George Bush, endorsed by a large majority of Republican leaders across the nation, has pocketed most of the GOP donations. The growing need for campaign funds has caused both parties in Congress to reject a bill introduced by Senator McCain and Representative Feingold in the wake of the 1996 elections; the bill, which would have reformed campaign-finance legislation by outlawing "soft money" (unregulated campaign contributions), might have contributed to make politics sounder. 

Front-loading has also resulted in depriving Americans of candidates who, had they stayed in the race, might have enriched the debate. Even before Iowans flocked to their precinct caucuses on 24 Jan., four well-known Republicans had already dropped out. This odd phenomenon was largely triggered by Iowa Republican leaders’ own scheming, however: on 14 Aug. 1999 they staged a well-publicized straw poll, allegedly to forecast the outcome of the 2000 caucuses. The very low scores of John Kasich, Lamar Alexander and Dan Quayle caused them to withdraw. The only woman candidate, Elizabeth Dole, seeing her campaign coffers leaking dangerously, also decided to call it quits in October. She was on the stump for months, but did not get a chance to enter a single primary or caucus. 

Finally, front-loading has also stepped up the "super Tuesday" or "fat Tuesday" phenomenon, with over a dozen states across the country holding primaries and caucuses the same day. Presidential hopefuls cannot possibly visit, and campaign in, all these states at the same time. They have to make choices, and in doing so they naturally discriminate against the smaller states, which are allocated few delegates at the party conventions. The trend thus contributes to strengthen the political clout and sway of the so-called "megastates" such as California, Texas, New York or Illinois. 

The current campaign, while widely covered by the press and electronic media, has therefore aroused much comment and criticism.

The complexity of the American presidential election system has been lamented for decades. Not only is it intricate — because it relies on state and party prerogatives — but it is also constantly changing. Every four years some rules are altered to try and address new problems. The current issue of front-loading has stirred a heated debate which has led to proposals being put forward. One would be to organize regional primaries: the states located in the same region would hold their primaries the same day. This would make campaigning easier and perhaps less costly for candidates, and it might make caucus and primary returns more rational; hopefully, it would also ease tensions between states over the primary-date issue. However, whether states will agree to such a compromise remains to be seen. Some, like New Hampshire, are unlikely to renounce what they regard as a privilege, "siz[ing] [candidates] up and lay[ing] them out," as columnist David Broder put it (quoted by HughGregg, <http://www.nh.com>).  

Bartels, Larry M. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton Univ. Press, 1988.

Burns, James McGregor, et al. Government by the people. Prentice-Hall, 1987.

Davis, James W. Presidential Primaries. Greenwood Press, 1984.

Finkel, David. "New Hampshire vote: no melting pot there." The International Herald Tribune, 2 Feb. 2000.

Winebrenner, Hugh. The Iowa Precinct Caucuses: the Making of a Media Event. Iowa Univ. Press, 1988.

A few useful Web sites: http://www.govote.com