July 24, 2008 |
2008-R-0409 | |
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS | ||
| ||
By: Kristin Sullivan, Associate Analyst | ||
You asked for information on (1) initiatives to elect the president by national popular vote, (2) proposals to limit the length of presidential campaigns, and (3) superdelegates.
SUMMARY
We found one nationwide initiative, spearheaded by National Popular Vote Inc., to implement a popular election of the U.S. President. Under this proposal, states adopt an interstate compact and agree to award their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes nationwide. The compact does not take effect until enough states have joined to cumulatively possess the minimum number of electoral votes needed to elect the president, or 270. To date, four states have done so.
We did not find any proposals that would restrict presidential campaigns to a specified and limited time period before the general election. However, we did find proposals to reform the presidential primary system. Three of these seek to shorten the nomination calendar by, for example, holding the first state nominating events (whether primaries or caucuses) in March of the election year, rather than in January.
Finally, “superdelegate” is a term that refers to certain delegates to the Democratic National Convention. These delegates are unpledged, meaning they are free to endorse any candidate for the Democratic nomination. The Republican Party does not have superdelegates, though it does have delegates who are free to endorse whomever they chose.
POPULAR VOTE
Federal and state statutory and constitutional provisions govern the system for electing the president of the United States. To win the election under this system, a presidential candidate (1) must possess a majority of the 538 Electoral College votes, or 270, but (2) does not necessarily have to win a greater number of popular votes. Since the electoral vote threshold is derived partly from the U.S. Constitution, any system for electing the president by popular vote must work within the confines of the Electoral College, ensuring that the winner attains at least 270 of these votes, unless the Constitution is amended to abolish this requirement.
National Popular Vote Inc., a nonprofit corporation located in California, is working to implement a nationwide popular election of the president by having states adopt an interstate compact. Under its proposal, the popular votes from all 50 states and the District of Columbia are added together to obtain a national grand total for each presidential candidate. Then, state election officials in each state that joins the compact awards its electoral votes to the presidential candidate who received the largest number of popular votes nationwide. Any state or Washington, D. C. may join the compact but it does not take effect until enough have done so to cumulatively total 270 electoral votes. This guarantees that the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide wins enough electoral votes in the Electoral College to become president. The 270-vote threshold represents a majority of the people of the United States, ensuring that every vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia is equally important in presidential elections.
To date, four states have adopted the interstate compact: Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey. Both chambers passed the bill in California and it is awaiting the governor's signature. The governors of Rhode Island and Vermont vetoed the bill. In addition, the compact has (1) passed one chamber in Arkansas, Colorado, North Carolina, Maine, Massachusetts, and Washington; (2) passed one committee in eight states, including Connecticut; (3) had a hearing in an additional nine states; and (4) been introduced in 15 other states. Two states are now drafting the compact and National Popular Vote is seeking sponsors in four other states.
PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY REFORM PLANS
By some accounts, the primary season for the 2008 presidential election was the longest in history. According to the National Association of Secretaries of State, the race for the Democratic and Republican nominees was well underway by January 2007. Experts attribute this partly to “frontloading,” the shift in state nominating contests toward the front of the nomination calendar, which drove candidates to campaign early. In addition, the highly competitive race for the Democratic nomination between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton lasted longer than prior years' contests, extending into June 2008. In response, several government and nonprofit groups have pushed for primary reform. Some have offered reform plans to, in part, shorten the nomination calendar.
States, however, have the authority to determine when they will hold their nominating events. Most follow Democratic and Republican party rules, which prescribe guidelines concerning the nomination calendar. During the 2008 election cycle for example, both parties prohibited any state from holding its nominating event before February 5, unless it was pre-approved for an earlier date (e.g., Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada). Those that violated the rules were penalized and stripped of national convention delegates.
Thus, any reform plan would likely need to originate through agreement between the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Republican National Committee (RNC), or federal legislation, for states to abide by it. Further, Republican Party rules prohibit changes to the nominating calendar after the party's national convention, which is set for September 1-4, 2008. The parties would therefore need to adopt a reform plan by this time for the plan to take effect by the 2012 presidential primary.
Table 1 summarizes the proposals we found that would shorten the presidential nomination calendar.
Table 1: Presidential Nomination Calendar Reform Plans
Proposal or Plan |
Procedure |
Proponent(s) |
Pros |
Cons |
Interregional Primary Plan |
Divides the country into six geographical regions with six primaries, beginning in March and ending in May. At least one state from each region votes during each primary. State order within each region is set by a lottery. In a 24-year cycle, every state has a chance to be among the first primary states. |
Several, including: n Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), S. 2024, 2007 n Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI), H.R. 1523, 2007 |
n Spaces out the primary dates over several months, requiring candidates to establish themselves in multiple states n Each primary includes multiples states, ensuring that each primary includes a fair and representative presence from every region of the country |
n High travel costs for candidates who would have to cover the country for each primary, interfering with lesser-funded candidates' ability to build up from small contests to large ones n Disparity with respect to the number of congressional districts at play during any given primary, leading to a disparity in their importance |
Regional Lottery Plan |
Calls for amending the U.S. Constitution to designate four regions comprised of contiguous states (except Alaska and Hawaii would be added to the western region). States within the same region would hold their nominating events in successive months, beginning in April and ending in July. The two major-party conventions would follow in August. A lottery, held January 1 of the presidential election year, determines regional order. A second lottery determines which two states hold the first two nominating events. Only states with four or fewer U.S. House of Representatives members (presently 20) and the District of Columbia are eligible. The winners would hold their nominating events in mid-March, two weeks before the initial regional contests. |
Larry Sabato, director, of University of Virginia Center for Politics |
n Spaces out the primary dates over several months, requiring candidates to establish themselves in multiple states n Each primary includes multiples states, ensuring that each primary includes a fair and representative presence from every region of the country n Maintains Iowa- and New Hampshire-like effect of personalized campaigning by candidates during initial nominating events but incorporates the process on a rotating basis |
n High travel costs for candidates who would have to cover the country for each primary, interfering with lesser-funded candidates' ability to build up from small contests to large ones n Disparity with respect to the number of congressional districts at play during any given primary, leading to a disparity in their importance n Requires amending the Constitution |
Rotating Regional Primary Plan |
Except for New Hampshire and Iowa, groups each state in the country into one of four regions by geography: East, South, Midwest, and West. Regional primaries are held in March, April, May, and June, with the order of the regions rotating every four years. Lottery determines the order for the first cycle. For the next, the region that formerly voted first moves to the end of the sequence and the other regions move forward. Thus, regions take turns going first. New Hampshire and Iowa retain their early status. |
National Association of Secretaries of State |
n No state or region dominates the selection process n Eliminates frontloading n Gives regions equal weight as they take turns going first n Allows candidates to focus on regional issues n Reduces campaign expenditures by enabling more focused spending n Promotes meaningful interaction between candidates and voters |
n Retains the prerogative of Iowa and New Hampshire to go first, and the consequent problems (i.e., candidates will continue to homestead and maintain permanent campaigns in these states) n Nomination calendar predictability will increase the scope of homesteading since candidates will know years in advance which region will go first in a cycle and may therefore tend to homestead in an entire region |
SUPERDELEGATES
The Democratic Party's rules establish two types of delegates to its presidential nominating convention: pledged and unpledged. Unpledged delegates are often referred to as “superdelegates.” Superdelegates, unlike pledged delegates, are not selected based on state nominating events. Most are seated automatically based on their status as current or former party leaders and elected officials. Others are chosen by state party committees during the primary season. Superdelegates include DNC members, former Democratic presidents and vice presidents, all Democratic members of Congress, and Democratic governors, among others.
Superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the nomination. Pledged delegates, who are selected because of their announced preference for a presidential nominee, must support that candidate. The Republican Party also seats some party officials to its nominating convention as delegates without regard to primary or caucus results, but the term “superdelegate” is used in reference to the Democratic Party only.
KS:ts