Political Notes: Participation

This article was written for the May issue of Capitol Report New Mexico. As has been mentioned here before, production of Capitol Report as a magazine was suspended due to slow advertising sales. For information on the possible re-leaunch of Capitol Report, email: hmorgan3@mac.com.
The author, Dr. Lonna Atkeson, is Professor and Regents Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at the University of New Mexico. We thank her for being part of Capitol Report New Mexico.

by Lonna Atkeson
In 1968 the Democrats nominated Hubert Humphrey, a man ultimately seen as an illegitimate party nominee because he did not compete in a single primary. The tumultuous events of that year, including the nomination of the Vice President, resulted in dramatic change in how we select the party nominees. Four years later, the Democratic Party, dragging the Republicans with them, went from a system that relied heavily on elites and party insiders to choose the party standard bearer to one that placed that decision primarily in the hands of primary and caucus participants –the rank-and-file of the party. The purpose of these reforms was to provide meaningful participation by creating a more open and democratic process allowing nearly all interested persons to participate in the selection process.
The parties, however, have always tinkered with the process, manipulating the process to advantage specific candidates or the economic or regional interests of some states over others, which influences voter turnout and consequently representation in terms of meaningful participation. One way to manipulate the process is through frontloading or the moving of a nominating event earlier in the nomination campaign. Since 1988 frontloading has become more prominent and in 2008 it was the most frontloaded ever with 22 nominating events scheduled a mere one month after the process began.
The effects of frontloading over time has been an erosion of meaningful participation as candidates have been chosen earlier and earlier in the process leaving many voters with only a mythical election to participate in. The GOP contest in 2008 is typical of what we have seen with the advent of frontloading.
There was a steady decline in Republican turnout as the incentives provided by a competitive contest decreased due to candidate winnowing and delegate accumulation for McCain approaching the magical number.
Something different happened as the Democratic Party came out of Super Tuesday, February 5, with a close, exciting, 2-person race. At first the turnout followed that of the GOP, declining sharply with each event past New Hampshire and as delegates begin to accumulate. But, with no clear winner after nearly 50% of the nominating events complete, Democratic turnout reverses course, surging upwards.
This is not what many party insiders want. They prefer the termination of potentially millions of voters’ meaningful participation in the process, as has happened in the Republican Party. They fear the power of competition and its potentially negative and divisive effects. Perhaps, however, these are unnecessary fears.
Although it is true that nomination campaigns tend to divide the party, general election campaigns help to rebuild party coalitions. The changing context from a within party race to a between party race creates a high information environment in which voters can reevaluate both party candidates based upon the more important general election contest about who is going to run the country. The general election campaign helps to unite the party around the party nominee and research has shown that in presidential contests divisiveness has very little affect in general election outcomes.
Competition and increased turnout also have other benefits for the party, in addition to the increase in meaningful participation for voters later in the process. Nomination campaigns are an environment in which the party has the opportunity to expand its base of support. Research shows that those involved in the nomination campaign, even for a losing candidate, often work for the party or party nominee in the general election campaign. Thus, the advantages of party building during presidential nomination campaigns outweigh the potential costs of an intraparty fight that is a natural part of a candidate centered process and offers a unique opportunity for new entrants to come into the party. With a shorter campaign, party expansion and recruitment may be less likely as voters do not have the time or inclination to become involved in a candidate’s campaigns before the race is essentially over. Thus, perhaps the lengthy, but exciting Democratic contest, as seen by the unexpected and unprecedented mobilization of millions of Democrats young and old, may hold additional benefits for Democrats as they turn to the interparty contest and the differences between the two major party nominees.