Table Of ContentProportional Representation
in Presidential Nominating Politics
Also published for the Institute of Government, University of
Virginia:
Chester W. Bain, Annexation in Virginia: The Use of the Judicial
Process for Readjusting City-County Boundaries. 1966. xiv,
258 pp.
Chester W. Bain, “A Body IncorporateThe Evolution of City-
County Separation in Virginia. 1967. xii, 142 pp.
David G. Temple, Merger Politics: Local Government Consolidation
in Tidewater Virginia. 1972. xii, 225 pp.
Thomas R. Morris, The Virginia Supreme Court: An Institutional
and Political Analysis. 1975. xvi, 188 pp.
Weldon Cooper and Thomas R. Morris, Virginia Government and
Politics: Readings and Comments. 1976. xviii, 438 pp.
Larry Sabato, The Democratic Party Primary in Virginia: Tanta-
mount to Election No Longer. 1977. ix, 169 pp.
Proportional Representation
in Presidential Nominating Politics
Paul T. David and James W. Ceaser
with
Edmund Beard
_ , Richard Murray
I; n
Samuel K. Gove
^ Howard L. Reiter
Jean G. McDonald
Published for
The Institute of Government, University of Virginia
University Press of Virginia
Charlottesville
THE UNIVERSITY PRESS OF VIRGINIA
Copyright © 1980 by the Rector and Visitors
of the University of Virginia
First published 1980
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
David, Paul Theodore, 1906-
Proportional representation in presidential nominating
politics.
Includes index.
1. Presidents—United States—Nomination. 2. Pro
portional representation—United States. 3. Political
conventions. I. Ceaser, James W., joint author.
II. Title.
JK521.D36 329'.022'0973 79-4387
ISBN 0-8139-0787-X
Printed in the United States of America
Foreword
This is the seventh volume in a series of publications issued jointly
by the Institute of Government and the University Press of Virginia
and dealing with politics and public affairs in Virginia. This exam-
ination of proportional representation in presidential nominating
politics, although it includes a case study of Virginia’s experience
in 1976, ranges beyond the boundaries of the Commonwealth
to give us a more comprehensive view of one important aspect of
state and national politics. Few observers today would deny that
the past decade has brought tremendous change to American poli-
tics, including modifications of the basic rules of the game. The
nature and consequences of those rules changes are questions well
worth our attention, and professors David and Ceaser here contri-
bute importantly to an understanding of them.
CLIFTON MCCLESKEY, Director
Institute of Government
Charlottesville, Virginia
Preface
This study was conceived in the fall of 1975, when many political
analysts were predicting a “brokered” or multiballoted convention
in the Democratic party in 1976. The belief that a nominee would
not be chosen on the first ballot rested on two premises: first, that
none of the candidates possessed sufficient appeal or political
strength to emerge from the primaries as a clear and undisputed
front-runner; and second, that the new party selection rules re-
quiring the use of a proportional division of the delegates in many
states would tend to disperse the delegate totals among a large
number of candidates and thus make it more difficult for any one
candidate to obtain a majority. Under the original conception of
this study, each state was to be assigned an observer who would
follow the state’s delegate selection process, paying particular
attention to its method of dividing the delegates. The observer
would then study the behavior of the state delegation at the con-
vention under the anticipated situation of a bargained decision. No
comprehensive study of the nominating process had been done for
over twenty years, and it seemed clear to us that many of the ear-
lier generalizations about delegation behavior would need revision
in light of both the different rules under which delegates are now
chosen and the changed character of state and local party organi-
zations.1
The second part of the project, the study of delegation behavior
at the convention, was canceled when it became apparent that the
1
For the last comprehensive study of the nominating process, see Paul T.
David, Malcolm Moos, and Ralph M. Goldman. Presidential Nominating Politics
in 1952, 5 vols. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1954).
Preface
Democrats’ decision would in fact be made on the first ballot. In
light of the earlier expectations, this outcome itself demanded ex-
planation. In part, it was due to unexpected developments at the
political level: Jimmy Carter proved to be a much more formidable
candidate, and his opponents much weaker candidates, than virtu-
ally anyone had supposed. But this was not the entire story. As we
turned to a closer study of the delegate selection rules, we discovered
that they were not nearly so hostile to a first-ballot victory as most
initially believed. There was first the obvious fact that proportional
representation was not universally required in 1976; as it happened,
over one-third of the delegates were chosen under sanctioned “loop-
hole” (i.e., nonproportional) systems. But even where proportional
rules were employed, their tendency to produce a bargained decision
was not nearly so pronounced as we had expected. The shift to
proportional systems had two major effects that tended to offset
each other. On the one hand, proportional representation as a
method of apportioning delegates did indeed possess the anticipated
dispersing or fragmenting result. On the other hand, however, as
one integral part of a set of rules emphasizing the concept of repre-
sentation of national candidates rather than party organizations or
interest groups, proportional systems allowed a leading contender
to pick up committed delegates in states that, under previous rules,
would most likely have chosen a much larger number of uncom-
mitted delegates.
Beyond this, our study revealed the importance that variations
in the rules can have on the balance of political forces within both
parties. For example, had proportional rules been used in all of the
Republican primaries in 1976, it would almost certainly have helped
the conservative wing of the party and given the nomination to
Ronald Reagan. The significance of these and other findings about
the effects of the rules served as a partial consolation for the neces-
sity of reducing the scope of the original project.
The book is divided into two general parts. The first analyzes the
selection process as a whole, describing the various selection sys-
tems now being used and tracing the origin, growth, and potential
future consequences of the new principle of proportional represen-
tation. The second part looks at the operation of selected state
systems; it consists of six independently written state reports cho-
sen to represent a cross section of the different kinds of selection
procedures and to provide some indication of the variety of political
vm
Preface
contests in 1976. Apart from being asked to cover a few general
questions relating to the effects of the rules on the division of dele-
gates, the authors were left to develop their case studies on their
own. This “decentralized” approach reflected our conviction that,
despite the increased standardization in selection procedures that
has taken place over the past decade (especially in the Democratic
party), each state nomination race remains in many respects unique,
colored by its own laws, party rules, traditions, and political culture.
As in most joint projects, there was some division of labor be-
tween the authors. Professor David conceived the project and han-
dled most of the administrative chores, including the voluminous
correspondence with the many state collaborators. Chapter 1 was
jointly written, Professor David had primary responsibility for
chapters 2 and 3, and Professor Ceaser for chapters 4, 5, and 6.
In connection with this project we would like to thank the Insti-
tute of Government at the University of Virginia, which sponsored
the study from the beginning. The Institute’s director, Clifton Mc-
Cleskey, and its editor, Sandra H. Wilkinson, both read the manu-
script in its entirety and offered many valuable suggestions. Also,
the Institute’s executive secretary, Elizabeth Hull, very capably
supervised all of the secretarial work required during the course of
the project. The Earhart Foundation provided financial assistance
for travel and materials, for which we are very grateful. Carol Casey
of the Congressional Research Service kindly provided copies of
official election returns and other data for a considerable number
of states. The data were analyzed with the help of B. Nelson Ong,
Gale Mattox, and John Epperson, all graduate students at the Uni-
versity of Virginia.
Other institutes of government and departments of political
science throughout the country were helpful in recruiting state
directors who assisted in the national project by providing informa-
tion about their states. We would like in particular to acknowledge
the contributions of the following:
William H. Steward, Jr., University of Alabama; Bruce E. Keith,
University of California, Berkeley; Howard L. Reiter, University of
Connecticut; Catherine Rudder, University of Georgia; Roger F.
Snider, University of Idaho; Samuel K. Gove, University of Illinois;
Edmund Beard, University of Massachusetts, Boston; Ronald J. Hy,
University of Mississippi; Thomas Payne, University of Montana;
Don W. Driggs, University of Nevada; Robert U. Anderson, Univer-
IX
Preface
sity of New Mexico; Louise S. Brennan, University of North Caro-
lina; Boyd L. Wright, University of North Dakota; John H. Kessel,
Ohio State University; Jean McDonald, University of Oklahoma;
Christine Howells, University of Rhode Island; Alan L. Clem, Uni-
versity of South Dakota; Ross E. Dobson, Russell L. Smith, and
Larry W. Thomas, University of Tennessee; Richard Murray, Uni-
versity of Houston, Texas; Hugh Bone, University of Washington;
Allan S. Hammock and Robert DiClerico, West Virginia University;
James R. Donoghue, University of Wisconsin; and Oliver Walter,
University of Wyoming.
x
Contents
Foreword v
Preface vii
Part I National Events and Analysis
Chapter 1 Proportional Representation in the
Democratic Party 3
Chapter 2 The 1976 Democratic Nomination Contest 18
Chapter 3 The 1976 Republican Nomination Contest 29
Chapter 4 The Effect of Alternative Selection Systems
on the 1976 Nomination Race 34
Chapter 5 Theoretical Considerations of Proportional
Representation in Delegate Selection 61
Chapter 6 The Outlook for 1980 78
Part II Studies in Selected States
Chapter 7 Massachusetts: A Primary State
Edmund Beard 91
Chapter 8 Oklahoma: A Caucus State
Jean G. McDonald 124
Chapter 9 Illinois: A Primary State
Samuel K. Gove 152
Chapter 10 Connecticut: A Primary-Caucus State
Howard L. Reiter 170
Chapter 11 Texas: A Primary State
Richard Murray 199
Chapter 12 Virginia: A Caucus State
James W. Ceaser 223
