Primaries more costly than caucuses
Published Feb. 5, 2008
Throughout the past 20 years, more states have been switching to primary elections, including Missouri. Now, more than half of the states use an election to apportion delegates to the Democratic and Republican parties’ national conventions.
Born in the progressive movement of the early 20th century, state primaries were conceived in order to limit the control of party bosses in candidate selections. But until the 1970s, state primaries were used only as a way to measure support for candidates and had no official function.
After Hubert Humphrey won the Democratic presidential nomination without entering a single primary in 1968, there was something of a revolt within the Democratic Party and sweeping campaign reforms were enacted by the parties in the 1970s, taking control away from party conventions and allowing states to decide how to apportion their delegates.
“It was supposed to empower the people, which it has,” MU history professor Jeff Pasley said. “But what it has really done is empowered individual candidates.”
Pasley, who also worked for Al Gore’s ill-fated 1988 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, is concerned about the direction the presidential nomination process is headed.
“It has just become more and more based on name recognition and celebrity status rather than policy stances,” he said.
As for the switch in states from caucuses to primaries — except for Iowa and a couple of other states — primaries tend to attract more media attention and are easier for candidates to campaign in, Pasley said. In a caucus, a candidate needs supporters and activists in each locality where a caucus vote occurs in addition to a larger time commitment, the focus in a primary can be shifted to population centers and the media can be used much more effectively, with participation requiring only a quick stop by a polling place.
MU political science professor James Endersby said the shift from caucuses to primaries can be explained by the increased media attention a primary attracts, but also because they are more popular with the rank and file party members.
“There’s been a trend to broaden political participation,” he said. “The primary is one such example.”
Endersby said that while a primary might be more representative of a state’s voters, it is not necessarily representative of the party. With many states establishing earlier primaries in an attempt to receive more recognition and importance, Endersby said the system is in need of reform and is not responsible politics. He also said that while most democracies limit campaigns to 4-6 weeks, the U.S. presidential campaigns take much more than a year, which he said creates more negativity among voters.
For Missouri, this is only the state’s fourth primary. In 1988, the state held its first primary because former Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., thought it would be more beneficial to his bid for the presidential nomination to hold a primary rather than the traditional caucus. The state switched back to caucuses in 1992 and 1996, but has held a primary since 2000, when Gephardt was again seeking the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.
Boone County Clerk Wendy Noren said she is not very fond of the state’s shift to a primary. Noren has a significantly increased workload because the state administers a primary, whereas a caucus was administered and paid for by the party. She said the state spent close to $4 million to administer the primary in 2004 and estimates Missouri will spend around $6 million to administer the primary this year.
“I understand the rationale for a primary, but I have a nostalgic fondness for caucuses,” Noren said. “I think caucuses are absolutely one of the last dying forms of direct democracy.”
While the turnout in a caucus might not be as high as a primary, it is a better test of the commitment of a party’s political base.
MU political science professor Peverill Squire, who was formerly a University of Iowa professor, said it is more likely for states to switch from a caucus to a primary because it is easier to meet party rules in a primary, but in states with long established caucus traditions, such as Iowa, that change might not come. He said both parties should fix the presidential nomination calendar to make it work.
“This is a system on the verge of breaking,” Squire said. “There will be pressure in both parties to change the system once again.”