Primaries and caucuses

The distinction between a primary and a caucus is straight-forward. Both seek to secure support for a would-be presidential candidate. By winning a primary or caucus, that candidate gains delegates from that particular state. Each state has the freedom to choose its own particular method. Most states however use primaries. Caucuses tend to held in rural states with a sparse population.

A primary can be either open or closed. During an open primary, all registered voters are allowed to vote. As such, cross-over voting may occur (where Democrats vote in Republican primaries and Republican voters vote in Democrat primaries). During a closed primary, only those registered to that particular party are allowed to vote. An open primary is much more democratic than a closed primary. However, one of the issues presented by an open primary is that voters from the opposing party have an incentive to support an ‘ideological’ candidate who would deter moderate voters during a presidential election. Equally, there is an incentive to prolong the race. In 2012 Rick Santorum actually encouraged Democrat voters to support his candidacy in the state of Michigan. The conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh tried the same tactic in 2008, when he encouraged voters from the Grand Old Party (GOP) to support Hillary Clinton in order to prolong the Democrat race and thereby undermine Obama’s chances of victory.

A caucus however is more of an expression of grassroots politics. A caucus (the Native American word for “meeting place”) may well meet in a local church or someone’s home. The result of each caucus will be passed onto the state party's headquarters. Results are then collated together in order to identify a winner. One of the drawbacks of a caucus is its cumbersome nature. Inevitably, this can result in confusion. For instance, in the Iowa caucus of 2012 Mitt Romney was declared the winner. However, the result was later overturned and Rick Santorum was declared the winner. Collating the results from over 1,700 precincts had arguably contributed to the confusion.

Whereas these are the basic distinctions between a primary and a caucus, there are other terms to be aware of. For instance, a modified primary is a particular type of primary in which registered party voters can exercise their democratic right alongside those registered as independents. This is probably the best test of a candidate’s ability to maintain support among the party base whilst appealing towards the center ground. The qualities needed to win a modified primary are broadly similar to those required during the general election. There is also a jungle primary in which candidates for every state and national office (except the President) are placed on the same ballot and voters may choose anyone regardless of party. The two candidates with the most support then face each other in the general election, even if they are both from the same party.

By convention, New Hampshire holds the first primary of the season whilst Iowa holds the first caucus. Other states have every incentive to hold their contests during the early stages of the campaign, as the race for the presidential nomination (Wayne, 2001; Popkin, 2012) could effectively be over by April. There is even the possibility of a no-contest for those states that leave it too late. Both the RNC and DNC have rules in place in order to prevent frontloading. If state parties break these rules, delegates may be taken away from them. It should also be recognized that both main parties have a vested interest in compression. Neither party wants to prolong their contest, as it may expose divisions within the party and take valuable funds away from the actual presidential campaign. In recent years, the contest has often been effectively over by Super Tuesday (when a number of states – mainly in the south – hold their primaries). This is a test of a candidates appeal to a predominately conservative group of voters.

In 2012, Obama ran virtually unopposed. Usually, the incumbent has a free run from his party as to stand against an incumbent will often present the party in a divisive light. Revealingly, the last three incumbents to face a serious challenge have all gone onto lose the presidential contest. In 1976, Gerald Ford barely edged past Ronald Reagan for the GOP nomination, whereas Jimmy Carter came perilously close to losing against Ted Kennedy four years later. In 1992, George Bush senior faced a challenge from Pat Buchanan (who shocked the GOP establishment by gaining over 35% of the vote in the New Hampshire primary). In all three cases, the incumbent was challenged by a candidate more ideologically in tune with the party. As with members of Congress, an incumbent President is always vulnerable to ‘over-your-shoulder’ politics. The incumbent is also more likely to face a challenge when he is unpopular with the electorate. This is often determined by the state of the economy. In each of three cases mentioned, the economy was in poor shape. It is of course worth noting that the economy is one of the most important determinants of voting behavior.

The primary system was introduced as a response to the flawed system of that what came before. Party activists and bosses would come to some sort of arrangement in order to field the best candidate. Before the reforms of the 1960s, presidential nominees were chosen by delegates to the conventions and the delegates themselves were chosen by conclaves of party activists from each state. Despite the obvious flaws with the primary system, there has been very little call to return back to the old ways. At the very least, most would accept that the primary system represents an improvement from older days.