?eople

The Political Intention of the Primary System

When the direct primary was introduced late in the 19th century, the vast majority of elective offices ­ for Congress, state legislatures, city councils, county supervisors, sheriffs, and so forth ­ were not competitive. Electoral manipulation (gerrymandering, for example) and group traditions (the urban Irish were Democrats while Midwestern Germans were Republicans) had created party bastions almost everywhere, and voters, then as now, loyally supported the candidates of their party.

Nomination assured election, and, in most cases, party leaders and political notables used personal loyalties and patronage to control the caucus and convention delegates who did the nominating. The result of such control was office-holders who were more responsive to the party leaders - who could deny them renomination - than they were to an electorate which would rarely defeat them in the general election.

The reinforcing elements of this system of party government were pierced by the direct nominating primary because it eliminated the support party leaders received from the electorate's partisanship. The nominating primary never asked voters to cross party lines. It allowed them to select preferred candidates within their party; and then support them again in the general election. It promised to weaken party leaders by increasing the chance of selecting candidates who were not beholden to party leaders for the nomination.

The hoped-for effects of the primary were not immediate. Slating, endorsements, control over money and other electoral resources, and the commitment and cohesiveness of party cadres gave party leaders continued influence over nominations. In time, however, the influence of traditional party leaders and notables was significantly reduced.

A Problem with Primaries

The grandest vision of the reformers went unrealized because primaries developed their own nominating elite: the few who bothered to vote in them. In the typical contemporary primary, turnout rarely exceeds 30 percent of the eligible electorate. In very low salience, off-year primaries such as 1998 participation may not exceed 20 percent of the potential electorate. The problem with such low participation is the unrepresentativeness of those who take part ..."