Southpark.nl Buffering

Evolution of National Convention 1842: the first primary in the history [7]

The first example of direct popular vote for the nomination of candidates of a party dates back to 1842. This must be the Democratic Party of Crawford County, Pennsylvania already mentioned the important contribution to the transition from system to system and state congressional caucus caucus / convention. In those years, the Crawford County was dominated by Democrats, but at times threatened to divide and promote their opponents, the Whigs. Many delegates to the Democratic convention complained about irregularities in the procedures, especially in admitting the delegates and counting the votes. Due to dissension and infighting, often groups of delegates abandoned the democratic convention to nominate candidates to meet elsewhere and alternatives. Elections happened that most Democratic candidates running for public office itself, competing with each other and supporting the Whig candidate. The Whigs tried to get the most from the difficulties of democracy. They proposed, for example, that no single party put up candidates in general elections. After yet another division in 1839, Democrats tried methods of designating alternatives that avoid, or at least reducing, the risk of fragmentation and internal strife.

On February 22, 1842, in Meadville , the capital of the county, convened a meeting of Democrats in order to amend the method of selection of candidates. The meeting did not lead to satisfactory conclusions, and leaders convene another meeting, at the county level, to August 9 of that year. The second meeting was rather decisive. Its proceedings involved the selection of candidates by the method of direct primaries. The new plan, drafted by George Shellito, the city of Sadsbury, the Democrats asked the county to meet, city by city, on a Friday afternoon, September 9, 1842 from 15:00 to 18:00, to vote for candidates for public office premises. Each meeting was chaired by an officer, whose job was to tabulate the results of the vote and returned to the county convention next Monday. At the convention the votes were added up. For each public office, who obtained the relative majority of the votes was appointed the party's official candidate for election to the office.

To promote transparency, those who intended to run for the nomination was to announce his candidacy in local newspapers at least three weeks before the meetings. To further reduce the risks of division, each candidate for nomination must declare in advance to support the man who would be appointed by the convention, whoever he was. It was set up a special committee in charge of ensuring that this happened. Voters who participated in the voting in several cities were encouraged to support resolutions of support in principle to the proposed appointment, whoever he was. The primary planned by Shell were held about a month before the general elections and recorded a satisfactory turnout.

The Crawford County actually managed to bring harmony within the Democratic Party. Whoever lost was no longer troubled by the suspicion, often justified, of obscure maneuvers against him. More willingly surrendered to the popular opinion that the opinion of party leaders or convention controlled by party leaders. On the other hand, resolved internal disputes peacefully, the winner could enjoy the support of the party and the campaign could focus solely against political opponents.

democratic local newspapers supported the new approach, he emphasized the transparency and the ability to quell any reason at the root of conflict and recrimination, to explain to their readers the vote of each citizen directly affect the final result and that there were more intermediate channels through which the haggling and the tricks they could to prevent the will of the people to express themselves.

During the nineteenth century, the plan Shellito spread and was adopted by various parties in the local context, in a number of states. The resistance, however, were not indifferent. Many party leaders opposed the creation of the first experiment and then the dissemination of the method, because they understood that their power was put into serious question. Other difficulties of the primaries of this first phase were rather objective. For example, the difficulties of communication and movement of the first half of the nineteenth century favored the participation of the voters residing in urban areas, to the detriment of voters living in rural areas, where achieving the primary was more difficult and expensive. In the first experiment of Crawford County an excessive number of candidates nominated came from Meadville. The reaction of people living in rural areas pushed the Crawford County Democrats to abandon the system in 1850. However, after I tore the majority to the Democrats, the Republican Party of Crawford County in 1860 adopted the plan Shellito.

The problems that emerged at this stage are the typical problems of all primary and proposed solutions school did. Determine who should be admitted to vote and whom to exclude, ie those who consider voter or a member of the party qualified to participate in the primaries. Even today, the primary may be more or less open to participation by the voters of other parties, and each local context is rule as they wish. The primary reason closed harm to those who argue that only the voters of the party must decide for the party. The open primary reason to give those who argue that most voters are encouraged to participate, the better, in view of the general election.

In the absence of legislation, the first primary were obviously organized and managed independently by the parties. They were then parties should guarantee the proper conduct of the consultations. A serious problem was to decide how and to whom to entrust physically count the votes, to allow cross-checks by the representatives of different factions of the party, avoiding the risk of fraud. Often unhappy contest procedures, calling in vain repetitions or recount of the vote, and used these arguments to attack the system of primaries in the hope of returning to the previous system. Some politicians tried to feed the suspicion that the primaries were manipulated self-managed, that the vote was rigged, and that the primaries favored the intrigues and machinations, rather than contain them. Moreover, often in this historical phase, the primaries were used by only one party, while other parties were using conventional systems. Political opponents lost no opportunity to emphasize and exploit the inevitable difficulties of the primaries. Skepticism about the system devised by Crawford County was intended to last a few decades.

Over time, self-managed primary would have been abandoned in favor of government run primary, in this case state and regulated by specific laws. Many of the problems listed so far found the solution. Commending the organization to third parties shall ensure the impartiality of the electoral process and removes all suspicion of fraud and manipulation of election results. From the standpoint of the parties, the management of public consultations represented a considerable economic advantage, because he did impose costs on taxpayers' money instead of the coffers of political parties. Was passed, at least partially, the question of involving all regions, even poorer ones, not to benefit the largest urban concentrations. However, sometimes the government that organizes, manages and finances the primaries, can invade, voluntarily or not, the powers of the parties, establishing how the consultation should be carried out with such rules, whether they should be open or closed, which votes should be counted, how to allocate delegates, and so on. That is why even today in some states parties hold primary self-managed.

______________________________

[7] Main source: John F. Reynolds, The Crawford County System And The Origin Of The Direct Primary , SSHA Politics Network News, 1996.