I have never paid all that much attention to the history of Presidential primaries & caucuses, but in reading about the current scenario I came across this item below. I started voting when Carter was running for President and did not realize that all states having primaries was a relatively recent development. Why is this so? Why didn’t all states have primaries? Wouldn’t they have wanted their opinions to be counted or were they content to rely strictly on their delegates?
Actually, all states have had either primaries or caucases for quite a while. However, only since 1968 have they expected the decisions made at these primaries or caucases to be binding on the delegates. Why? I’ll try to explain.
Before 1968, the presidential candidates often didn’t decide whether to run until the convention. That meant the states often didn’t make their primary results binding on the delegates chosen, or would pick a “favorite son” from the state who then would bargain at the convention to get the state party its best deal. A good example was the Democratic race of 1952. Estes Kefauver won 12 of the 13 primaries. Adlai Stevenson even claimed at the beginning of the convention he wasn’t running, but changed his mind and won on the third ballot. Kefauver didn’t protest–it was a more deferential time.
Let’s go to 1968. Hubert Humphrey didn’t enter the race until March and didn’t even enter a primary. He still won the nomination, but the anti-Vietnam war delegates backing Eugene McCarthy refused to go down quietly. Protesters both in and out of the convention hall caused so much controversy that Humphrey’s campaign was doomed from the start. In reaction, state legislatures and party organizations started increasing the number of primaries and also made them binding on the delegates. Although many states still hold caucuses, now there is a huge amount of peer pressure for them to stick to their original choices.
You know, astro, I’ve noticed over the years that you ask a lot of questions about American history. Have you ever considered that it might be more efficient to buy some books about the subject and read them? There are subjects that it’s not efficient to read about (rather than posting about) because there aren’t any good books that summarize the subject in an efficient way, but American history isn’t one of them. You should seriously read more and post less.
That’s dumb.
astro’s questions are at least well thought out and factual, and not of the vague “do my homework for me” variety, and the answers in the threads benefit a lot more people than just him. Not that there’s anything wrong with picking up a history book, but there’s nothing wrong with utilizing the GQ forum for its intended purpose, either.
astro’s questions are well-thought-out and factual. They’re also frequently about the sort of issues that can be learned more efficiently from books. I’m not classing astro with the newbies who spend several months on the SDMB posting a load of questions that are so poorly formulated that no one can even figure out what they’re asking. My point is that he asks a lot of questions about American history and politics that he can become more knowledgeable about faster by reading books.
Perhaps rather than simply criticizing, we could recommend some books Astro might like.
Political parties have been nominating presidential candidates since 1796, and primary elections of any kind, for any office, weren’t “invented” until around 1900. So for more than one hundred years, the answer to your question is that primaries didn’t exist.
Even after 1900, people had a different idea about what it meant for a state’s “opinions” to “count”. The handful of states which chose national convention delegates by binding presidential preference primary gave up important leverage at the convention. Their delegates were committed in advance, locked up by state law for at least the first ballot. Other states, with uncommitted delegations led by state party leaders, could bargain and negotiate and perhaps secure important concessions such as the vice presidential nomination.
I’m sure your heart is in the right place with this suggestion, Wendell, and perhaps astro will heed your suggestion, but curiosity isn’t always about efficiency. Sometimes you just get an urge to have one little aspect of something you don’t understand clarified.
Part of the reason I might place a question in the SDMB GQ forum Wendell, is that (in some cases) I consider it an item of sufficient general interest that others, in addition to myself, might be interested in hearing the question answered. Not that I consider myself a perfect representative for the average person, but I have often found that if I don’t know the answer to something (even seemingly common questions) there is a fair chance that others might not have considered the question previously and there would be some level of interest in addressing the topic. The SDMB is more than just about getting knowledge, it’s about sharing knowledge.
It’s true that I could probably could spend some greater or lesser amount of time on a wiki-google tour of the net and possibly derive the answer myself, but GQ (if it’s an appropriate question) is typically faster, more focused to the question at hand, and given the generally high quality of SDMB participants is often fairly authoritative to boot. Beyond this, I frankly just plain enjoy the potential for having a dialog about the topic, and being informed about a subject by someone especially knowledgeable about the topic. I think that this interplay and give and take is part of what makes the SDMB so enjoyable. If a question was only to be asked after someone beats the net and the libraries to death, this would be a pretty dull and poorly attended message board.
No. Prior to 1972, most states did not have primaries or caucuses. That’s how in 1968, Hubert Humphrey was able to get the nomination even though he didn’t run in any primaries.
Once the convention system was set up in the mid-1800s, each state had its own methods for naming delegates. Usually there were conventions, but the delegates were sometimes designated by the party bosses. The first primaries appeared in 1912, and some of those were only essentially polls – they were not binding.
From then until 1968, the primaries were ways to judge a candidate’s appeal. JFK, for instance, showed his Catholicism was not an issue when he won the West Virginia primary in 1960. The party bosses, who were reluctant to go for him, were convinced by the win that he was a viable candidate.
After 1968, many Democrats didn’t like the fact that the bosses chose Humphrey (though he probably wouldn’t have been able to win if RFK hadn’t been assassinated), so they revamped the primary system to make is the primary (sorry) way of determining delegates. Nearly all primaries were made preferential (the delegates were required to vote for the winning candidate on the first ballot)
Caucuses are a more recent invention. They don’t seem to have been used prior to 1972. This was pretty much an end-around by Iowa: New Hampshire made sure it was the first primary in the country (they liked the attention), so Iowa decided that, instead of a primary, they’d hold a caucus, which could be held before NH.
Well that is the point of the Straight Dope to ask questions others may not know to ask and to find answers. Let’s face it now with the Internet there is little you can’t Google around for, however most of the information on the Internet is garbage. Any yahoo can get a blog for free or start a website for a few bucks a month.
FWIW, that’s why I’ve always enjoyed reading your questions AND the answers they generate, including this particular question. Further to the point, I’m not an American History buff, nor do I enjoy reading about it, yet the answer to THIS question interested me.
So, thanks for asking.
Oh, and also, thanks for the answers 
Speaking both as a poster and a GQ moderator, I see nothing wrong with astro’s question. While very simple questions that could easily be answered with a standard reference are discouraged, this isn’t one of them. A general answer to the question can be obtained more rapidly here than by trying to locate a book on the subject, and the question is of sufficient general interest to others that it is worth discussion in GQ even if the answer can be found in books.
Edited to add: Let’s return to the subject of the OP, and drop discussion of whether astro needs to read a history book or not.
I agree with thiis sentiment.
ETA: Whoops sorry Colibri. Now back to the regularly scheduled thread.
Caucuses were held before 1972, and weren’t invented to bypass NH, although they had that effect–for Iowa, at least. Caucuses and state conventions often co-existed, as they still do today–the caucus was the beginning of the process of electing delegates to a state convention.
To be sure, pre-1972 caucuses seldom resembled the mass-participation media frenzies of today. Many (but not all) were poorly publicized, insider-only affairs, and they were seldom contested by the candidates. See here for an interesting account of the Minnesota caucus in 1968, and of the frustrations of trying to influence the party nomination under pre-reform rules.
The McGovern-Fraser reforms required that caucuses be more accessible and better publicized, and that presidential preference votes be translated proportionally into national convention delegates. As one of the architects of this reform, McGovern was the first to perceive its potential for transforming caucuses into quasi-primaries, and he contested and won the Iowa caucus (which by pure happenstance happened to be first) in 1972.
Jimmy Carter did likewise in 1976, and by 1980 the Iowa caucus was universally recognized as the beginning of the presidential nomination season. It was eventually “grandfathered” into both parties rules as the first permissible pre-Super-Tuesday contest.