Preliminary elections inside a party are called in one word

Подробнее о работе

Гарантии Автор24

• Гарантийный срок

  10 дней с момента оплаты работы

• Критерии обращения по гарантии

  Работа не соответствует заявленному описанию или уникальность
  менее
  50%

• Куда обращаться

  Оформить жалобу в личном кабинете

  Инструкция

  Ознакомиться с подробной инструкцией можно по

  ссылке

15 января 2019 заказчик разместил работу

Выбранный эксперт:

Купить эту работу vs Заказать новую
2 раза	Куплено	Выполняется индивидуально
Не менее 40% Исполнитель, загружая работу в «Банк готовых работ» подтверждает, что уровень оригинальности работы составляет не менее 40%	Уникальность	Выполняется индивидуально
Сразу в личном кабинете	Доступность	Срок 1—4 дня
1200 ₽	Цена	от 200 ₽

Не подошла эта работа?

В нашей базе
10881 Ответы на вопросы
— поможем найти подходящую

5
Похожих
работ

Отзывы студентов

For other uses, see Primary (disambiguation).

Part of the Politics series
Elections
Allotment (sortition) By-election Electoral fraud Show election Fixed-term election General election Primary election Open vs. closed Nonpartisan blanket Two-round (runoff) Direct vs. Indirect Local election Referendum Criticisms of electoralism
Terminology
Anonymous elector Apportionment Boundary delimitation (redistricting) Crossover voting Gerrymandering Election silence Majority-minority districts Nesting Secret ballot Suffrage
Subseries
Political party Voting Voting systems
Lists
Elections by country Election results by country Electoral calendar
Politics portal
v · d · e

A primary election is an election in which party members or voters select candidates for a subsequent election. Primary elections are one means by which a political party nominates candidates for the next general election.

Primaries are common in the United States, where their origins are traced to the progressive movement. There, primary elections are conducted by the government on behalf of the parties. Elsewhere in the world, the nomination of candidates is usually the responsibility of the political party organizations themselves and does not involve the general public.

Besides primaries, other ways that parties may select candidates include caucuses, conventions, and nomination meetings. Historically, Canadian political parties chose their candidates in party meetings in each constituency. Canadian party leaders are elected at leadership conventions, although some parties have abandoned this practice in favour of one member, one vote systems.

Types

Most countries in which primary elections are organized by parties, not the administration, generally distinguish only two types of primaries:

• Closed primary (synonyms: internal primaries, party primaries). In the case of closed primaries, internal primaries, or party primaries, only party members can vote.
• Open primary. All voters can take part in an open primary, but the party may require them to express their support to the party’s values and pay a small contribution to the costs of the primary.

In the United States, other types can be differentiated:

• Closed primary. People may vote in a party’s primary only if they are registered members of that party. Independents cannot participate. Note that because some political parties name themselves independent, the term «non-partisan» often replaces «independent» when referring to those who are not affiliated with a political party.
• Semi-closed. As in closed primaries, registered party members can vote only in their own party’s primary. Semi-closed systems, however, allow unaffiliated voters to participate as well. Depending on the state, independents either make their choice of party primary privately, inside the voting booth, or publicly, by registering with any party on Election Day.
• Open primary. A registered voter may vote in any party primary regardless of his own party affiliation. When voters do not register with a party before the primary, it is called a pick-a-party primary because the voter can select which party’s primary he or she wishes to vote in on election day. Because of the open nature of this system, a practice known as raiding may occur. Raiding consists of voters of one party crossing over and voting in the primary of another party, effectively allowing a party to help choose its opposition’s candidate. The theory is that opposing party members vote for the weakest candidate of the opposite party in order to give their own party the advantage in the general election. An example of this can be seen in the 1998 Vermont senatorial primary with the election of Fred Tuttle for the Republican candidate.
• Semi-open. A registered voter need not publicly declare which political party’s primary that they will vote in before entering the voting booth. When voters identify themselves to the election officials, they must request a party’s specific ballot. Only one ballot is cast by each voter. In many states with semi-open primaries, election officials or poll workers from their respective parties record each voter’s choice of party and provide access to this information. The primary difference between a semi-open and open primary system is the use of a party-specific ballot. In a semi-open primary, a public declaration in front of the election judges is made and a party-specific ballot given to the voter to cast. Certain states that use the open-primary format may print a single ballot and the voter must choose on the ballot itself which political party’s candidates they will select for a contested office.
• Run-off. A primary in which the ballot is not restricted to one party and the top two candidates advance to the general election regardless of party affiliation. (A run-off differs from a primary in that a second round is only needed if no candidate attains a majority in the first round.)

There are also mixed systems in use. In West Virginia, where state law allows parties to determine whether primaries are open to independents, Republican primaries are open to independents, while Democratic primaries were closed. However, as of April 1, 2007, West Virginia’s Democratic Party opened its voting to allow «individuals who are not affiliated with any existing recognized party to participate in the election process».

Primaries in the United States

Non-partisan

Primaries can be used in nonpartisan elections to reduce the set of candidates that go on to the general election (qualifying primary). (In the U.S., many city, county and school board elections are non-partisan.) Generally, if a candidate receives more than 50% of the vote in the primary, he or she is automatically elected, without having to run again in the general election. If no candidate receives a majority, twice as many candidates pass the primary as can win in the general election, so a single seat election primary would allow the top two primary candidates to participate in the general election following.

When a qualifying primary is applied to a partisan election, it becomes what is generally known as a Louisiana primary: typically, if no candidate wins a majority in the primary, the two candidates receiving the highest pluralities, regardless of party affiliation, go on to a general election that is in effect a run-off. This often has the effect of eliminating minor parties from the general election, and frequently the general election becomes a single-party election. Unlike a plurality voting system, a run-off system meets the Condorcet loser criterion in that the candidate that ultimately wins would not have been beaten in a two way race with every one of the other candidates.

Because many Washington residents were disappointed over the loss of their blanket primary, which the Washington State Grange helped institute in 1935, the Grange filed Initiative 872 in 2004 to establish a Louisiana or Top 2 primary for partisan races, thereby allowing voters to once again cross party lines in the primary election. The two candidates with the most votes then advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation. Supporters claimed it would bring back voter choice; opponents said it would exclude third parties and independents from general election ballots, could result in Democrat or Republican-only races in certain districts, and would in fact reduce voter choice. The initiative was put to a public vote in November 2004 and passed. On July 15, 2005, the initiative was found unconstitutional by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The Supreme Court^{[clarification needed]} heard the Grange’s appeal of the case in October 2007. In March 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality the Grange-sponsored Top 2 primary; the first election under the system was held in August 2008.

Open primaries have also been placed to the voters in California (as Proposition 62), but failed after heavy advertising from the established political parties bringing up the specter of the Louisiana primary and of the 2002 French presidential election.

In elections using voting systems where strategic nomination is a concern, primaries can be very important in preventing «clone» candidates that split their constituency’s vote because of their similarities. Primaries allow political parties to select and unite behind one candidate. However, tactical voting is sometimes a concern in non-partisan primaries as members of the opposite party can strategically vote for the weaker candidate in order to face an easier general election.

Presidential

In the United States, Iowa and New Hampshire have drawn attention every four years because they hold the first caucus and primary election, respectively, and often give a candidate the momentum to win the nomination.

A criticism of the current presidential primary election schedule is that it gives undue weight to the few states with early primaries, as those states often build momentum for leading candidates and rule out trailing candidates long before the rest of the country has even had a chance to weigh in, leaving the last states with virtually no actual input on the process. The counterargument to this criticism, however, is that, by subjecting candidates to the scrutiny of a few early states, the parties can weed out candidates who are unfit for office.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) proposed a new schedule and a new rule set for the 2008 Presidential primary elections. Among the changes: the primary election cycle would start nearly a year earlier than in previous cycles, states from the West and the South would be included in the earlier part of the schedule, and candidates who run in primary elections not held in accordance with the DNC’s proposed schedule (as the DNC does not have any direct control over each state’s official election schedules) would be penalized by being stripped of delegates won in offending states. The New York Times called the move, «the biggest shift in the way Democrats have nominated their presidential candidates in 30 years.»^[1]

Of note regarding the DNC’s proposed 2008 Presidential primary election schedule is that it contrasted with the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) rules regarding Presidential primary elections. «No presidential primary, caucus, convention, or other meeting may be held for the purpose of voting for a presidential candidate and/or selecting delegates or alternate delegates to the national convention, prior to the first Tuesday of February in the year in which the national convention is held.»^[2] In 2012, this date is February 7.

Primary systems state-by-state

2011

In California, under Proposition 14, a measure that easily passed, traditional party primaries will be replaced in 2011 with wide-open elections.^[3]

2010

Oregon became the first American state in which a binding primary election was conducted entirely via the internet. The election was held by the Independent Party of Oregon in July, 2010.^[4]

2008

For information about a particular state’s primary system as of January 2008, see list below. The best source of up-to-date information is often the official website of the state in question, but this can be hard to find. For example, California lists detailed information about its current «modified closed» (i.e. semi-closed) system on the California state website.^[5] Similarly, information on the Arizona semi-closed primary system can be found on the Arizona state website.^[6][7] For Presidential candidate delegate assignment, however, Arizona conducts a Presidential Preference Election (PPE), distinguishing the contest from the state’s primary election laws. Arizona’s PPE is closed to those not registered with a state-recognized party.^[8]

• Alabama — Open Primary (Feb 5). Deadline (10 Days — Jan 26).
• Alaska — Caucuses (Feb 5). Deadline (30 Days — Jan 6).
• Arizona — Closed PPE (Feb 5). Deadline (30 Days — Jan 6).
• Arkansas — Open Primary (Feb 5). Deadline (30 Days — Jan 6).
• California — Semi-Open Primary (Feb 5). Deadline (15 Days — Jan 22).
• Colorado — Caucuses (Feb 5). Deadline (29 Days — Jan 7). (For Democrats, the deadline to register is Feb 5)
• Connecticut — Closed Primary (Feb 5). Deadline (12 Noon, Feb 4).
• Delaware — Closed Primary (Feb 5). Deadline (24 Days — Jan 12).
• District of Columbia — Primary (Feb 12). Deadline (30 Days — Jan 13)
• Florida — Closed Primary (Jan 29). Deadline (29 Days — Jan 1).
• Georgia — Open Primary (Feb 5). Deadline (Jan 7).
• Hawaii — Open Caucuses (Mar 2). Deadline (30 Days — Feb 1).
• Idaho — Open Primary (May 27). Deadline (May 2 for pre registration. Registration allowed on Election Day).
• Illinois — Semi-Open Primary (Feb 5). Deadline (27 Days — Jan 9).
• Indiana — Open Primary (May 6). Deadline (28 Days — Apr 9).
• Iowa — Caucus (Jan 3). Deadline (10 days — Dec 24, 2007).
• Kansas — Caucuses (Feb 9). Deadline (15 Days — Jan 25).
• Kentucky — Closed Primary (May 20). Deadline for new registrations (28 Days — Apr 22). Deadline for party switch (Dec 31, 2007)
• Louisiana — Caucus (Feb 9). Deadline (Jan 11).
• Maine — Caucuses (February 1 through February 3). Deadline (None — Day of Election though check the rules regarding this caucus).
• Maryland — Closed Primary (Feb 12). Deadline (21 Days — Jan 22).
• Massachusetts — Semi-Closed Primary (Feb 5). Deadline (1 Day — Jan 16).
• Michigan — Open Primary (Jan 15). Deadline (30 Days — Jan 6).
• Minnesota — Open Caucuses (Feb 5 *). Deadline (20 Days — Jan 16).
• Mississippi — Open Primary (Mar 11). Deadline (30 Days — Feb 10).
• Missouri — Open Primary (Feb 5). Deadline (4th Wednesday Prior — Jan 9).
• Montana — Open Primary (Jun 3). Deadline (30 Days — May 4).
• Nebraska — Primary (May 13 *). Deadline (Second Friday before an election, May 2).
• Nevada — Caucuses (Jan 19). Deadline (30 Days — Dec 20, 2007).
• New Hampshire — Semi-Open Primary (Jan 8). Deadline (10 Days — Dec 28, 2007).^[9]
• New Jersey — Primary (Feb 5). Deadline for new registrations (21 Days — Jan 15, 2008). Deadline for party switch (50 days — Dec 17, 2007). Unaffiliated voters can declare on the day of primary.
• New Mexico — Republican Primary (Jun 3). Deadline (28 Days — May 6) Democrat closed caucus Feb 5, 2008 (deadline January 4).
• New York — Closed Primary (Feb 5). Deadline (25 Days — Jan 11).
• North Carolina — Semi-Open Primary (May 6 *). Deadline (30 Days — Apr 6). Early voting starts April 17
• North Dakota — Open Caucuses (Feb 5). Deadline (No registration. Must have residency for 30 days — Jan 6).
• Ohio — Semi-Open Primary (Mar 4). Deadline (30 Days — Feb 3).
• Oklahoma — Closed Primary (Feb 5). Deadline (24 Days — Jan 12).
• Oregon — Closed Primary (May 20). Deadline (21 Days — Apr 29).
• Pennsylvania — Closed Primary (Apr 22). Deadline (30 Days — Mar 23).
• Rhode Island — Primary (Mar 4). Deadline (30 Days — Feb 3).
• South Carolina — Open Primary (Jan 19 for Republicans, Jan 26 for Democrats). Deadline (30 days — Dec 20, 2007 for Republicans and Dec 25, 2007 for Democrats).
• South Dakota — Closed Primary (Jun 3). Deadline (15 Days — May 19).
• Tennessee — Open Primary (Feb 5). Deadline (30 Days — Jan 6).
• Texas — Semi-Open Primary (Mar 4) & Closed Caucus (begins Mar 4, schedule based on party rules). Voting in primary is prerequisite for caucusing at precinct convention, which convenes after primary polls close. Deadline (Feb 4, 2008).
• Utah — Closed Primary (Feb 5). Deadline (30 Days — Jan 6).
• Vermont — Open Primary (Mar 4). Deadline (Feb 27, 2008).
• Virginia — Open Primary (Feb 12). Deadline (29 Days — Jan 14).
• Washington — Open Caucus (Feb 9) & Primary (Feb 19). This is a two step process. Deadline (30 Days via mail or online, 15 Days in Person Friday, Jan 25).
• West Virginia -Closed Primary (18 Delegates at the State Convention on Feb 5 (ask the state party for details), 12 Delegates for the May 13 Primary).
  • Deadline (21 days to register or change your party to Republican — Apr 22 for the Primary).
• Wisconsin — Open Primary (Feb 19). Deadline (The day before or the day of at your polling precinct).
• Wyoming — Caucus (Mar 8).

* — Note that these Primaries / Caucuses may be changed to a date earlier than stated.

Primary classifications

While it is clear that the Closed/Semi-Closed/Semi-Open/Open classification commonly used by scholars studying primary systems does not fully explain the highly nuanced differences seen from state to state, they are still very useful and have real-world implications for the electorate, election officials, and the candidates themselves.

As far as the electorate is concerned, the extent of participation allowed to weak partisans and independents depends almost solely on which of the aforementioned categories best describes their state’s primary system. Clearly, open and semi-open systems favor this type of voter, since they can choose which primary they vote in on a yearly basis under these models. In closed primary systems, true independents are, for all practical purposes, shut out of the process.

This classification further affects the relationship between primary elections and election commissioners and officials. The more open the system, the greater the chance of raiding, or voters voting in the other party’s primary in hopes of getting a weaker opponent chosen to run against a strong candidate in the general election. Raiding has proven stressful to the relationships between political parties, who feel cheated by the system, and election officials, who try to make the system run as smoothly as possible.

Perhaps the most dramatic effect this classification system has on the primary process is its influence on the candidates themselves. Whether a system is open or closed dictates the way candidates run their campaigns. In a closed system, from the time a candidate qualifies to the day of the primary, he must cater to strong partisans, who tend to lean to the extreme ends of the ideological spectrum. In the general election, on the other hand, the candidate must move more towards the center in hopes of capturing a plurality.

Daniel Hannan, a British politician and Member of the European Parliament, opines «Open primaries are the best idea in contemporary politics. They shift power from party hierarchs to voters, from Whips to backbenchers and from ministers to Parliament. They serve to make legislatures more diverse and legislators more independent.»^[10]

Mytimetovote.com^[11] contains voting information by State including seats repartition, Poll location, Voting registration and more.

Primaries in Europe

In Europe, primaries are not organised by the public administration but by parties themselves. Legislation is mostly silent on primaries. The main reason to this is that the voting method used to form governments, be it proportional representation or two-round systems, lessens the need for an open primary. Party fragmentation reduces wasted votes and does not hamper the chances to win, like in single-winner elections. Coalitions can be formed before (Sweden) or afterwards (Netherlands).

Governments are not involved in the process, however, parties may need their cooperation, notably in the case of an open primary, e.g. to obtain the electoral roll, or to cover the territory with a sufficient number of polling stations.

Whereas closed primaries are rather common within many European countries, few political parties in Europe already opted for open primaries. Parties generally organise primaries to nominate the party leader (leadership election). The underlying reason for that is that most European countries are parliamentary democracies. National governments are derived from the majority in the Parliament, which means that the head of the government is generally the leader of the winning party. France is one exception to this rule.

Unlike at Member State level, primaries are completely unknown at the level of the European Union. So far, European political parties, which are federations of national political parties and are mainly based in Brussels, never consult individual party members (let alone voters) while designating their top candidates; however, some European parties are considering to change that for the next European elections in 2014.

Closed primaries happen in many European countries, while open primaries have so far only occurred in the socialist and social-democratic parties in Greece and Italy, whereas the France’s Socialist Party is about to organise the first open primary in France in October 2011.

Italy

In Italy, the first open primaries took place on the 16th October 2005. It led to the designation of Romano Prodi as leader of the great Olive Tree coalition, which gathered several center and left-wing parties, for the legislative elections of the 9th and 10th April 2006. Romano Prodi won the election, but his small advance in the Senate (two seats) helped the Upper house pass a vote of no-confidence two years later.

France

In France, parties are frequently created, akin to the Fifth Republic’s nonpartisan ideal (a President beyond partisanship). This long prevented the making of primaries, but it has grown in popularity on the left-wing as a tool to overcome divisions.

In presidential races, parties are usually the tool of their leader. None of the six Presidents elected through direct election faced an internal election. The first round of voting is used instead as an open primary, sometimes to the dismay of a whole camp.

• In 2007, Sarkozy, President of the UMP, organized an approval «primary» without any opponent. He won by 98% and made his candidacy speech thereafter.
• On the left however, the Socialist Party, which helped Mitterrand gain the Presidency for 14 years, has been plagued by internal divisions since the latter departed from politics. Rather than forming a new party, which is the habit on the right-wing, the party started to elect its running mate internally.
  • A first try in 1995: Lionel Jospin won the nomination three months before the election. He lost in the run-off to Chirac. Later in 2002, although the candidacy of then-PM Jospin was undisputed, each of the 5 left-wing parties of the government he led sent a candidate. . . paving the way for a loss of all five.
  • The idea made progress coming near the 2007 race, once the referendum on a European constitution was over. The latter showed strong ideological divisions within the left-wing spectrum, and the Socialist party itself. This prevented the possibility of a primary spanning the whole left-wing, that would give its support to a presidential candidate, similar to the Italian example.
  • Given that no majority supported either a leader or a split, a closed primary was organized, which Ségolène Royal won. She qualified to the national run-off that she lost to Sarkozy. She had previously convinced the party to launch a massive registration campaign, enabling membership for only 20 euros.
  • A first open primary will take place in late 2011 to pick up the Socialist party and the Radical Party of the Left nominee for the 2012 presidential election. Inspired by the 2008 U.S. primaries, it is seen as a way to reinvigorate the party. It was also criticized for going against the nature of the regime. It shall be noted that the open primary is not state-organized. The party will take charge of all the elecotral procedures, planning to set up 10,000 voting polls. Those on the electoral rolls, party members of Socialist party and the Radical Party of the Left, and members of the parties’ youth organisation (MJS and JRG) , including minors of 15 to 18 years old, will be entitled to vote in exchange of a euro to cover the costs.
• Other parties organize membership primaries to choose their nominee, such as Europe Ecologie — Les Verts (EE-LV) (2006, 2011), and the Front National (FN) in 2011.
• At the local level, primaries are extremely rare: In order to tame potential feud in his party, and prepare the ground for a long campaign, Sarkozy pushed for a closed primary in 2006 to designate the UMP candidate for the 2008 election of the Mayor of Paris. Françoise de Panafieu was elected in a four-way race. However, she did not clinch the mayorship two years later.

In autumn 2010, here was how the twenty-nine socialist, social-democratic, and labour parties member of the Party of European Socialists (PES) had designated their party leader:

• Only two parties organised an open primary: Greece (ΠΑΣΟΚ), Italy (PD)
• Closed primary happened in nine parties: Belgium (sp.a, PS), Cyprus (ΕΔΕΚ), Denmark (SD), France (PS), Ireland (LP), Netherlands (PvdA), Portugal (PS), United-Kingdom (Labour)
  The case of UK’s Labour party leadership election is specific, as three electoral colleges, each accounting for one third of the votes, participate in this primary election: Labourite members of Parliament and of the European Parliament, party members, members of affiliated organisations.
• The designation of the party leader was made by the party’s congress in the eighteen remaining parties: Austria (SPÖ), Bulgaria (БСП), Czech Republic (ČSSD), Estonia (SDE), Finland (SDP), Germany (SPD), Hungary (MSZP), Latvia (LSDSP), Lithuania (SDPL), Luxembourg (LSAP), Malta (LP), Poland (SLD, UP), Rumania (PSD), Slovakia (SMER-SD), Slovenia (SD), Spain (PSOE), Sweden (SAP), United-Kingdom / Northern Ireland (SDLP)

European Union

With a view to the European elections, many European political parties consider organising a presidential primary. Indeed, the Lisbon treaty, which entered into force in December 2009, lays down that the European Parliament now elects the European Commission president, who is the true head of the European Executive, on the basis of the results of the European elections. Parties are therefore encouraged to designate their candidates for Commission president ahead of the next election in 2014, in order to allow voters to vote with a full knowledge of the facts. Many movements are now asking for primaries to designate these candidates.

• Already in April 2004, a former British conservative MEP, Tom Spencer, advocated for American-style primaries in the European People’s Party: «A series of primary elections would be held at two-week intervals in February and March 2009. The primaries would start in the five smallest countries and continue every two weeks until the big five voted in late March. To avoid swamping by the parties from the big countries, one could divide the number of votes cast for each candidate in each country by that country’s voting weight in the Council of Ministers. Candidates for the post of president would have to declare by 1 January 2009.»^[12]

• Following the defeat of the Party of European Socialists during the European elections of June 2009, the PES Congress that took place in Prague in December 2009 made the decision that PES would designate its own candidate before the 2014 European elections. A Campaign for a PES primary^[13] was then launched by PES supporters in June 2010, and it managed to cinvince the PES Council meeting in Warsaw in December 2010 to set up Working Group «Candidate 2014» in charge of proposing a procedure and timetable for a «democratic» and «transparent» designation process «bringing on board all our parties and all levels within the parties».^[14]

The European think-tank Notre Europe also evokes the idea that European political parties should designate their candidate for Vice-president / High representative of the Union for foreigh affairs.^[15] This would lead European parties to have «presidential tickets» on the American model.

Finally, the European Parliament envisaged to introduce a requirement for internal democracy in the regulation on the statute of European political parties. European parties would therefore have to involve individual members in the major decisions such as designating the presidential candidate.^[16]

Primaries worldwide

• United States presidential primary.
  • Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008.
  • Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008.
• Primary elections in Italy.
• Chile.
• Uruguay, since 1999.
• United New Democratic Party (South Korea, 2007).
• Armenia. In an innovation on 2007 November 24 and 25, one political party conducted a non-binding Armenia-wide primary election. The party, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, invited the public to vote to advise the party which of two candidates they should formally nominate for President of Armenia in the subsequent official election. What characterized it as a primary instead of a standard opinion poll was that the public knew of the primary in advance, all eligible voters were invited, and the voting was by secret ballot. «Some 68,183 people . . . voted in make-shift tents and mobile ballot boxes . . .»^[17]
• United Kingdom. On August 4, 2009, Dr Sarah Wollaston was chosen by Open Primary as the Conservative Party candidate for Totnes, for the 2010 general election, the first time such a mechanism has been used to pick a prospective candidate for an election in the UK. This was after the current incumbent Anthony Steen decided to step down in the wake of the MPs expenses scandal. The Conservatives have plans to roll this out further and there are hopes other parties may nominate future candidates in this way.^[18][19]
• Colombia In 2006, the Liberal Party and the socialist Democratic Pole hold primary elections, electing Horacio Serpa as liberal candidate and Carlos Gaviria as candidate of the Democratic Pole. For 2010 presidential electiones, four parties held primary elections: The Liberal Party elected former minister Rafael Pardo as candidate, the Democratic Pole elected senator Gustavo Petro, the Conservative Party chose ambassador Noemi Sanin and the Green Party chose former mayor of Bogota Antanas Mockus.
• Republic of China (Taiwan): The Democratic Progressive Party selects all its candidates via opinion polls. The candidate with the highest poll rating will be nominated. The KMT selects candidates using a combination of opinion polls (worth 70%) and primary elections (worth 30%).

See also

• Sore-loser law, which states that the loser in a primary election cannot thereafter run as an independent in the general election

People

• Thomas W. Williams (Los Angeles), opposed the direct primary, 1915

Notes

References

• Bibby, John, and Holbrook, Thomas. 2004. Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis, 8th Edition. Ed. Virginia Gray and Russell L. Hanson. Washington D.C.: CQ Press, p. 62-100.
• Brereton Charles. First in the Nation: New Hampshire and the Premier Presidential Primary. Portsmouth, NH: Peter E. Randall Publishers, 1987.
• Hershey, Majorie. Political Parties in America, 12th Edition. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. p. 157-73.
• Kendall, Kathleen E. Communication in the Presidential Primaries: Candidates and the Media, 1912-2000 (2000)
• Primaries: Open and Closed
• Palmer, Niall A. The New Hampshire Primary and the American Electoral Process (1997)
• Scala, Dante J. Stormy Weather: The New Hampshire Primary and Presidential Politics (2003)
• Ware, Alan. The American Direct Primary: Party Institutionalization and Transformation in the North (2002), the invention of primaries around 1900

External links

• How Political Primaries Work at HowStuffWorks

Primary elections, or direct primary are a voting process by which voters can indicate their preference for their party’s candidate, or a candidate in general, in an upcoming general election, local election, or by-election. Depending on the country and administrative divisions within the country, voters might consist of the general public in what is called an open primary, or solely the members of a political party in what is called a closed primary. In addition to these, there are other variants on primaries (which are discussed below) that are used by many countries holding elections throughout the world.

The origins of primary elections can be traced to the progressive movement in the United States, which aimed to take the power of candidate nomination from party leaders to the people.^[1] However, political parties control the method of nomination of candidates for office in the name of the party. Other methods of selecting candidates include caucuses, internal selection by a party body such as a convention or party congress, direct nomination by the party leader, and nomination meetings.

Primary elections are typically held for offices that have a rigid term, such as a president, governor or member of a legislature. However, offices such as a prime minister, which can be replaced without recourse to a new election, have a similar process: a leadership election, where party members elect the leader of their political party. In the vast majority of instances, a party’s leader will become prime minister (in a federal election) or premier/chief minister/first minister (in a province, state, territory, or other first-level administrative subdivision) should their party enter government with the most seats. Thus, a leadership election is also often considered to be one for the party’s de facto candidate for prime minister or premier.

However, Prime Ministerial primaries have been held in inter-party electoral alliances, such as the 2021 Hungarian opposition primary, and also in cases where a single party opted to retain its leader but select someone else as its Prime Ministerial candidate, as the Portuguese Socialist Party has done in 2014.

The inverse may also happen; the Democratic Progressive Party in Taiwan automatically bestows the party’s internal leadership on a sitting DPP president.

Types[edit]

General[edit]

Where primary elections are organized by parties, not the administration, two types of primaries can generally be distinguished:

• Closed primary.^[2] (synonyms: internal primaries, party primaries) In the case of closed primaries, internal primaries, or party primaries, only party members can vote.
• Open primary.^[3] All voters can take part in an open primary and may cast votes on a ballot of any party. The party may require them to express their support to the party’s values and pay a small contribution to the costs of the primary.

United States[edit]

History[edit]

The direct primary became important in the United States at the state level starting in the 1890s and at the local level in the 1900s.^[4] However, presidential nominations depended chiefly on state party conventions until 1972. In 1968, Hubert Humphrey won the Democratic nomination without entering any of the 14 state primaries. The Democrats set up the McGovern–Fraser Commission that rewrote the rules to emphasize primaries, and the Republicans followed suit.^[5]

The first primary elections came in the Democratic Party in the South in the 1890s starting in Louisiana in 1892. By 1897 in 11 Southern and border states the Democratic party held primaries to select candidates. Unlike the final election run by government officials, primaries are run by party officials, making it easy to discriminate against black voters in the era of Jim Crow. The US Supreme Court declared the white primary unconstitutional in Smith v. Allwright in 1944.^[6]

The direct primary was promoted primarily by regular party leaders to obtain more party loyalty.^[7] However progressive reformers like Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin also promoted them, Starting in 1890 La Follette led the successful fight, winning voter approval in a referendum in 1904.^[8][9]

In the United States, various types can be differentiated:

Closed primary[edit]

• People may vote in a party’s primary only if they are registered members of that party prior to election day. Independents cannot participate. Note that because some political parties name themselves independent, the terms «non-partisan» or «unaffiliated» often replace «independent» when referring to those who are not affiliated with a political party. Thirteen states & Washington D.C., – Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming – have closed primaries.^[10][11]

Semi-closed[edit]

• As in closed primaries, registered party members can vote only in their own party’s primary. Semi-closed systems, however, allow unaffiliated voters to participate as well. Depending on the state, independents either make their choice of party primary privately, inside the voting booth, or publicly, by registering with any party on Election Day. Fifteen states – Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio,^[12] Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, and West Virginia – have semi-closed primaries that allow voters to register or change party preference on election day.^[11][13] Massachusetts allows unenrolled voters or members of minor parties to vote in the primary of either major party, but registration or party changes must be done no fewer than 20 days prior to the primary.^[14]

Open primary[edit]

• A registered voter may vote in any party primary regardless of his or her own party affiliation. Fourteen states – Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin – have open primaries.^[10] When voters do not register with a party before the primary, it is called a pick-a-party primary because the voter can select which party’s primary they wish to vote in on election day. Because of the open nature of this system, a practice known as raiding may occur. Raiding consists of voters of one party crossing over and voting in the primary of another party, effectively allowing a party to help choose its opposition’s candidate. The theory is that opposing party members vote for the weakest candidate of the opposite party in order to give their own party the advantage in the general election. An example of this can be seen in the 1998 Vermont senatorial primary with the nomination of Fred Tuttle as the Republican candidate in the general election^{[citation needed]}.

Semi-open[edit]

• A registered voter need not publicly declare which political party’s primary that they will vote in before entering the voting booth. When voters identify themselves to the election officials, they must request a party’s specific ballot. Only one ballot is cast by each voter. In many states with semi-open primaries, election officials or poll workers from their respective parties record each voter’s choice of party and provide access to this information. The primary difference between a semi-open and open primary system is the use of a party-specific ballot. In a semi-open primary, a public declaration in front of the election judges is made and a party-specific ballot given to the voter to cast. Certain states that use the open-primary format may print a single ballot and the voter must choose on the ballot itself which political party’s candidates they will select for a contested office.

Blanket primary[edit]

• A primary in which the ballot is not restricted to candidates from one party.

Nonpartisan blanket primary[edit]

• A primary in which the ballot is not restricted to candidates from one party, where the top two candidates advance to the general election regardless of party affiliation. Louisiana has famously operated under this system, which has been nicknamed the «jungle primary.» California has used a nonpartisan blanket primary since 2012 after passing Proposition 14 in 2010, and the State of Washington has used a nonpartisan blanket primary since 2008.^[15]

In the United States[edit]

The United States is one of a handful of countries to select candidates through popular vote in a primary election system;^[16] most other countries rely on party leaders or paid up party members to select candidates, as was previously the case in the U.S.^[17] In modern politics, primary elections have been described as a vehicle for taking decision-making from political insiders to the voters, though political science research indicates that the formal party organizations retain significant influence over nomination outcomes.^[18][19] The selection of candidates for federal, state, and local general elections takes place in primary elections organized by the public administration for the general voting public to participate in for the purpose of nominating the respective parties’ official candidates; state voters start the electoral process for governors and legislators through the primary process, as well as for many local officials from city councilors to county commissioners.^[20] The candidate who moves from the primary to be successful in the general election takes public office.

Non-partisan[edit]

Primaries can be used in nonpartisan elections to reduce the set of candidates that go on to the general election (qualifying primary). (In the U.S., many city, county and school board elections are non-partisan, although often the political affiliations of candidates are commonly known.) In some states and localities, candidates receiving more than 50% of the vote in the primary are automatically elected, without having to run again in the general election. In other states, the primary can narrow the number of candidates advancing to the general election to the top two, while in other states and localities, twice as many candidates as can win in the general election may advance from the primary.

Blanket[edit]

When a qualifying primary is applied to a partisan election, it becomes what is generally known as a blanket^[21] or Louisiana primary: typically, if no candidate wins a majority in the primary, the two candidates receiving the highest pluralities, regardless of party affiliation, go on to a general election that is in effect a run-off. This often has the effect of eliminating minor parties from the general election, and frequently the general election becomes a single-party election. Unlike a plurality voting system, a run-off system meets the Condorcet loser criterion in that the candidate that ultimately wins would not have been beaten in a two-way race with every one of the other candidates.

Because many Washington residents were disappointed over the loss of their blanket primary, which the Washington State Grange helped institute in 1935, the Grange filed Initiative 872 in 2004 to establish a blanket primary for partisan races, thereby allowing voters to once again cross party lines in the primary election. The two candidates with the most votes then advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation. Supporters claimed it would bring back voter choice; opponents said it would exclude third parties and independents from general election ballots, could result in Democratic or Republican-only races in certain districts, and would in fact reduce voter choice. The initiative was put to a public vote in November 2004 and passed. On 15 July 2005, the initiative was found unconstitutional by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The U.S. Supreme Court heard the Grange’s appeal of the case in October 2007. In March 2009, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Grange-sponsored Top 2 primary, citing a lack of compelling evidence to overturn the voter-approved initiative.^[22]

In elections using electoral systems where strategic nomination is a concern, primaries can be very important in preventing «clone» candidates that split their constituency’s vote because of their similarities. Primaries allow political parties to select and unite behind one candidate. However, tactical voting is sometimes a concern in non-partisan primaries as members of the opposite party can vote for the weaker candidate in order to face an easier general election.

In California, under Proposition 14 (Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act), a voter-approved referendum, in all races except for that for U.S. president and county central committee offices, all candidates running in a primary election regardless of party will appear on a single primary election ballot and voters may vote for any candidate, with the top two vote-getters overall moving on to the general election regardless of party. The effect of this is that it will be possible for two Republicans or two Democrats to compete against each other in a general election if those candidates receive the most primary-election support.^[23][24]

Partisan[edit]

As a result of a federal court decision in Idaho,^[25] the 2011 Idaho Legislature passed House Bill 351 implementing a closed primary system.^[26]

Oregon was the first American state in which a binding primary election was conducted entirely via the internet. The election was held by the Independent Party of Oregon in July, 2010.^[27]

Presidential primaries[edit]

In the United States, Iowa and New Hampshire have drawn attention every four years because they hold the first caucus and primary election, respectively, and often give a candidate the momentum to win their party’s nomination. Since 2000, the primary in South Carolina has also become increasingly important as it’s the first Southern state to hold a primary election in the calendar year.^[28]

A criticism of the current presidential primary election schedule is that it gives undue weight to the few states with early primaries, as those states often build momentum for leading candidates and rule out trailing candidates long before the rest of the country has even had a chance to weigh in, leaving the last states with virtually no actual input on the process. The counterargument to this criticism, however, is that, by subjecting candidates to the scrutiny of a few early states, the parties can weed out candidates who are unfit for office.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) proposed a new schedule and a new rule set for the 2008 presidential primary elections. Among the changes: the primary election cycle would start nearly a year earlier than in previous cycles, states from the West and the South would be included in the earlier part of the schedule, and candidates who run in primary elections not held in accordance with the DNC’s proposed schedule (as the DNC does not have any direct control over each state’s official election schedules) would be penalized by being stripped of delegates won in offending states. The New York Times called the move, «the biggest shift in the way Democrats have nominated their presidential candidates in 30 years.»^[29]

Of note regarding the DNC’s proposed 2008 presidential primary election schedule is that it contrasted with the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) rules regarding presidential primary elections. «No presidential primary, caucus, convention, or other meeting may be held for the purpose of voting for a presidential candidate and/or selecting delegates or alternate delegates to the national convention, prior to the first Tuesday of February in the year in which the national convention is held.»^[30] In 2024, this date is February 6.

Candidates for U.S. President who seek their party’s nomination participate in primary elections run by state governments, or caucuses run by the political parties. Unlike an election where the only participation is casting a ballot, a caucus is a gathering or «meeting of party members designed to select candidates and propose policies».^[31] Both primaries and caucuses are used in the presidential nomination process, beginning in January or February and culminating in the late summer political party conventions. Candidates may earn convention delegates from each state primary or caucus. Sitting presidents generally do not face serious competition from their party.

Primary classifications[edit]

While it is clear that the closed/semi-closed/semi-open/open classification commonly used by scholars studying primary systems does not fully explain the highly nuanced differences seen from state to state, still, it is very useful and has real-world implications for the electorate, election officials, and the candidates themselves.

As far as the electorate is concerned, the extent of participation allowed to weak partisans and independents depends almost solely on which of the aforementioned categories best describes their state’s primary system. Clearly, open and semi-open systems favor this type of voter, since they can choose which primary they vote in on a yearly basis under these models. In closed primary systems, true independents are, for all practical purposes, shut out of the process.

This classification further affects the relationship between primary elections and election commissioners and officials. The more open the system, the greater the chance of raiding, or voters voting in the other party’s primary in hopes of getting a weaker opponent chosen to run against a strong candidate in the general election. Raiding has proven stressful to the relationships between political parties, who feel cheated by the system, and election officials, who try to make the system run as smoothly as possible.

Perhaps the most dramatic effect this classification system has on the primary process is its influence on the candidates themselves. Whether a system is open or closed dictates the way candidates run their campaigns. In a closed system, from the time a candidate qualifies to the day of the primary, they tend to have to cater to partisans, who tend to lean to the more extreme ends of the ideological spectrum. In the general election, under the assumptions of the median voter theorem, the candidate must move more towards the center in hopes of capturing a plurality.

In Europe[edit]

In Europe, primaries are not organized by the public administration but by parties themselves. Legislation is mostly silent on primaries. The main reason to this is that the electoral system used to form governments, be it proportional representation or two-round systems, lessens the need for an open primary.

Governments are not involved in the process; however, parties may need their cooperation, notably in the case of an open primary, e.g. to obtain the electoral roll, or to cover the territory with a sufficient number of polling stations.

Whereas closed primaries are rather common within many European countries, few political parties in Europe already opted for open primaries^{[citation needed]}. Parties generally organise primaries to nominate the party leader (leadership election). The underlying reason for that is that most European countries are parliamentary democracies. National governments are derived from the majority in the Parliament, which means that the head of the government is generally the leader of the winning party. France is one exception to this rule.

Closed primaries happen in many European countries, while open primaries have so far only occurred in the socialist and social-democratic parties in Greece and Italy, whereas France’s Socialist Party organised the first open primary in France in October 2011.

One of the more recent developments is organizing primaries on the European level. European parties that organized primaries so far were the European Green Party (EGP) and the Party of European Socialists (PES).

Italy[edit]

Primary election were introduced in Italy to establish the centre-left candidates for 2005 regional election. In that occasion the centre-left The Union coalition held open primaries in order to select candidates for President of Apulia and Calabria. A more politically significant primary was held on 16 October 2005, when The Union asked its voters to decide the candidate for Prime Minister in the 2006 general election: 4,300,000 voters showed up and Romano Prodi won hands down. Two years later, on 14 October 2007, voters of the Democratic Party were called to choose the party leader among a list of six, their representatives to the Constituent Assembly and the local leaders. The primary was a success, involving more than 3,500,000 people across Italy, and gave to the winner Walter Veltroni momentum in a difficult period for the government and the centre-left coalition. The centre-right (see House of Freedoms, The People of Freedom, centre-right coalition and Forza Italia) has never held a primary at the national level, but held some experiments at the very local level.

France[edit]

The means by which the candidate of an established political party is selected has evolved. Until 2012, none of the six Presidents elected through direct election faced a competitive internal election.

• The right didn’t hold often primary elections to decide for their national candidates.
  • In 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the UMP, organized an approval «primary» without any opponent. He won by 98% and made his candidacy speech thereafter.
  • In 2016, The Republicans held, on 20 and 27 November, primaries to decide of their presidential candidate for 2017.
• On the left however, the Socialist Party, which helped François Mitterrand gain the Presidency for 14 years, has been plagued by internal divisions since the latter departed from politics. Rather than forming a new party, which is the habit on the right-wing, the party started to elect its nominee internally.
  • A first try in 1995: Lionel Jospin won the nomination three months before the election. He lost in the run-off to Jacques Chirac. Later in 2002, although the candidacy of then-PM Jospin was undisputed in his party, each of the five left-wing parties of the government he led sent a candidate, paving the way for all five to lose by the Spoiler effect.
  • The idea made progress as the 2007 race approached, once the referendum on a European constitution was over. The latter showed strong ideological divisions within the left-wing spectrum, and the Socialist Party itself. This prevented the possibility of a primary spanning the whole left-wing, that would give its support to a presidential candidate. Given that no majority supported either a leader or a split, a registration campaign, enabling membership for only 20 euros, and a closed primary was organized, which Ségolène Royal won. She qualified to the national run-off that she lost to Nicolas Sarkozy.
  • In 2011, the Socialist Party decided to organise the first ever open primary in France to pick the Socialist party and the Radical Party of the Left nominee for the 2012 presidential election. Inspired by the 2008 U.S. primaries, it was seen as a way to reinvigorate the party. The idea was first proposed by Terra Nova, an independent left-leaning think tank, in a 2008 report.^[32] It was also criticized for going against the nature of the regime. The open primary was not state-organized : the party took charge of all the electoral procedures, planning to set up 10,000 voting polls. All citizens on the electoral rolls, members of the Socialist party and the Radical Party of the Left, and members of the parties’ youth organisation (MJS and JRG), including minors of 15 to 18 years old, were entitled to vote in exchange for one euro to cover the costs. More than 3 million people participated in this first open primary, which was considered a success, and former party leader François Hollande was designated the Socialist and Radical candidate for the 2012 presidential election.
• Other parties organize membership primaries to choose their nominee, such as Europe Ecologie – Les Verts (EE-LV) (2006, 2011, 2016), and the French Communist Party in 2011.
• At the local level, membership primaries are the rule for Socialist Party’s candidates, but these are usually not competitive. In order to tame potential feud in his party, and prepare the ground for a long campaign, Sarkozy pushed for a closed primary in 2006 to designate the UMP candidate for the 2008 election of the Mayor of Paris. Françoise de Panafieu was elected in a four-way race. However, she did not clinch the mayorship two years later.

Germany[edit]

In Germany, top candidates for the federal election can be selected in primaries. For party leaders, however, the selection at delegate conferences is required by law. It is, nevertheless, possible to hold a non-binding primary.^[33]

Top candidates[edit]

The Greens nominated their top candidates for the 2013 federal election (election of Jürgen Trittin and Katrin Göring-Eckardt) and for the 2017 federal election (election of Cem Özdemir and Katrin Göring-Eckardt) in a primary election by all party members (closed primary).

Primary elections are used much more frequently by parties at the regional than at the federal level.^[34][35]

Party leaders[edit]

The first party to use a (non-binding) closed primary to select its party leader at the federal level was the SPD in 1993.^[36] After the surprising resignation of Andrea Nahles, the SPD held another party primary to determine her successor in 2019. A dual leadership of Saskia Esken and Norbert Walter-Borjans was elected. The CDU used the procedure for the first time in 2021.^[37] Friedrich Merz prevailed against two competitors Norbert Röttgen and Helge Braun in an online ballot of all CDU party members.

Russia[edit]

The first primaries in the history of Russia were held in May 2000 in St. Petersburg, the local branches of the parties Yabloko and the Union of Right Forces, who before the Gubernatorial election offered citizens to choose a single candidate from the democratic opposition.

In 2007, before the parliamentary elections, United Russia held primaries in several regions. However, its results were not sufficiently taken into account when nominating candidates from the party. For example, the congress of United Russia included in the regional party list in the Samara region not the winners of the primaries, but those who did not even participate in the primaries.

In the same year 2007, A Just Russia held the primaries to determine the candidate for the Gubernatorial election in Altai Krai. Anyone could vote for them, for which special items were opened. However, in the future, A Just Russia did not begin to pursue the primaries.

In 2011, United Russia, together with the All-Russian People’s Front, held primaries for the nomination of candidates for the parlmentary election. This vote was called the «All-People’s Primaries», but in fact it was not. Candidates for the primaries were selected by special committees. Not even all party members had the right to vote, but only about 200,000 specially selected electors. In addition, the results of voting on the primaries were in most cases ignored. Of the 80 lists of regional groups of candidates for the State Duma, nominated by the congress of United Russia, only 8 lists coincided with the lists of winners of the primaries. All the same, the event played a role in the elimination of candidates: there were cases when the current deputies of the State Duma, having seen that they did not enjoy the support of electors, withdrew their candidacies.

In the future, United Russia has sometimes resorted to an «open» model of primaries, which allows voting to all interested voters. In 2014, in the primaries of the «United Russia» before the elections to the Moscow City Duma, any Muscovite could vote, and not only registered electors.

In 2016, the primaries for the selection of candidates for parliamentary elections were held by four parties: United Russia, People’s Freedom Party,^[38] the Party of Growth^[39] and the Green Alliance.^[40] The most massive were 22 May 2016 primaries of the United Russia, which could vote for every citizen who has an active electoral right. However, the primaries, as well as earlier, were not binding for the leadership of United Russia: a number of winners of the primaries were withdrawn by the leadership without any explanation of reasons, and in 18 single-seat constituencies the party did not nominate any candidates. A striking example was the Nizhny Tagil constituency, where the candidate from the United Russia was approved candidate, who took the 4th place in the primaries.^[41] Finally, a number of candidates were included in the party list on the proposal of the party leader Dmitry Medvedev from among those who did not even participate in the primaries.

In 2017, the Party of Growth holds the primaries for the nomination of candidates for the presidential election. These are the first presidential primaries in the history of Russia. However, voting for candidates will take place via the Internet within three months, and, according to the spokesman of the party, the results of the primaries will not be mandatory for the nomination of the candidate and the party convention may nominate another candidate who does not even participate in the primaries, or even not nominate candidates and support President Vladimir Putin, if he decides to be re-elected.^[42]

United Kingdom[edit]

For the 2010 general election, the Conservative Party used open primaries to select two candidates for Member of Parliament. Further open primaries were used to select some Conservative candidates for the 2015 general election, and there are hopes other parties may nominate future candidates in this way.^[43][44]

Hungary[edit]

A two-round primary election was held in Budapest, Hungary in 2019 between four opposition parties, to select a single candidate to the 2019 Budapest mayoral election.^[45][46] A smaller primary was also held in the district of Ferencváros.^[47]

For the 2022 parliamentary elections, the opposition parties organized a primary to select both their candidates for MPs and prime minister.^[48]

European Union[edit]

With a view to the European elections, many European political parties consider organising a presidential primary.

Indeed, the Lisbon treaty, which entered into force in December 2009, lays down that the outcome of elections to the European Parliament must be taken into account in selecting the President of the Commission; the Commission is in some respects the executive branch of the EU and so its president can be regarded as the EU prime minister. Parties are therefore encouraged to designate their candidates for Commission president ahead of the next election in 2014, in order to allow voters to vote with a full knowledge of the facts. Many movements are now asking for primaries to designate these candidates.

• Already in April 2004, a former British conservative MEP, Tom Spencer, advocated for American-style primaries in the European People’s Party: «A series of primary elections would be held at two-week intervals in February and March 2009. The primaries would start in the five smallest countries and continue every two weeks until the big five voted in late March. To avoid swamping by the parties from the big countries, one could divide the number of votes cast for each candidate in each country by that country’s voting weight in the Council of Ministers. Candidates for the post of president would have to declare by 1 January 2009.»^[49]
• In July 2013 European Green Party (EGP) announced that it would run a first ever European-wide open primary as the preparation for the European elections in 2014.^[50] It was to be open to all citizens of the EU over the age of 16 who «supported green values»^[51] They elected two transnational candidates who were to be the face of the common campaign of the European green parties united in the EGP, and who also were their candidates for European Commission president.
• Following the defeat of the Party of European Socialists during the European elections of June 2009, the PES Congress that took place in Prague in December 2009 made the decision that PES would designate its own candidate before the 2014 European elections. A Campaign for a PES primary^[52] was then launched by PES supporters in June 2010, and it managed to convince the PES Council meeting in Warsaw in December 2010 to set up Working Group «Candidate 2014» in charge of proposing a procedure and timetable for a «democratic» and «transparent» designation process «bringing on board all our parties and all levels within the parties».^[53]

The European think-tank Notre Europe also evokes the idea that European political parties should designate their candidate for Vice-President/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs.^[54] This would lead European parties to have «presidential tickets» on the American model.^{[original research?]}

Finally, the European Parliament envisaged to introduce a requirement for internal democracy in the regulation on the statute of European political parties. European parties would therefore have to involve individual members in the major decisions such as designating the presidential candidate.^[55]

In Canada[edit]

As in Europe, nomination meetings and leadership elections (somewhat similar to primary elections) in Canada are not organized by the public administration but by parties themselves.^[56] Political parties participate in federal elections to the House of Commons, in legislative elections in all ten provinces, and in Yukon. (The legislatures and elections in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut are non-partisan.)

Local candidates[edit]

Typically, in the months before an anticipated general election, local riding associations of political parties in each electoral district will schedule and announce a Nomination Meeting (similar to a nominating caucus in the United States). Would-be candidates will then file nomination papers with the association, and usually will devote time to solicit existing party members, and to sign up new party members who will also support them at the nomination meeting. At the meeting, typically each candidate will speak, and then members in attendance will vote. The electoral system most often used is an exhaustive ballot system; if no candidate has over 50% of the votes, the candidate with the lowest number of votes will be dropped and another ballot will be held. Also, other candidates who recognize that they will probably not win may withdraw between ballots, and may «throw their support» to (encourage their own supporters to vote for) another candidate. After the nomination meeting, the candidate and the association will obtain approval from party headquarters, and file the candidate’s official nomination papers and necessary fees and deposits with Elections Canada or the provincial/territorial election commissions as appropriate.

At times, party headquarters may overturn an association’s chosen candidate; for example, if any scandalous information about the candidate comes to light after the nomination. A party headquarters may also «parachute» a prominent candidate into an easy-to-win riding, removing the need to have a nomination meeting. These situations only come up infrequently, as they tend to cause disillusionment among a party’s supporters.

Party leaders[edit]

Canadian political parties also organize their own elections of party leaders. Not only will the party leader run for a seat in their own chosen riding, they will also become Prime Minister (in a federal election) or Premier (in a province or territory) should their party win the most seats. Thus, a leadership election is also considered to be one for the party’s de facto candidate for Prime Minister or Premier. If the party wins the second-most seats, the party leader will become Leader of the Official Opposition; if the party comes third or lower but maintains official party status, the leader will still be recognized as the leader of their party, and will be responsible for co-ordinating the activities and affairs of their party’s caucus in the legislature.

In the past, Canadian political parties chose party leaders through an American-style delegated leadership convention. Local riding associations would choose delegates, usually in a manner similar to how they would choose a candidate for election. These delegates typically said explicitly which leadership candidate they would support. Those delegates, as well as other delegates (e.g. sitting party members of Parliament or the legislature, or delegates from party-affiliated organizations such as labor unions in the case of the New Democratic Party), would then vote, again using the exhaustive ballot method, until a leader was chosen. Some provincial political parties retain the delegated convention format.

Lately, Canada’s major political parties have moved to a «one member, one vote» system for their federal leadership elections. A leadership convention is still scheduled, but all party members have a chance to vote for the new leader. Typically, members may vote either in person at the convention, online, or through a mail-in ballot.

Instant-runoff voting is used in whole or in part to elect the leaders of the three largest federal political parties in Canada: the Liberal Party of Canada,^[57] the Conservative Party of Canada, and the New Democratic Party, albeit the New Democratic Party uses a mixture of IRV and exhaustive voting, allowing each member to choose one format or the other for their vote (as was used in their 2017 leadership election). In 2013, members of the Liberal Party of Canada elected Justin Trudeau as party leader through IRV in a national leadership election.^[58] The Conservative Party used IRV (where each of the party’s 338 riding associations are weighted equally, regardless of how many members voted in each riding) to elect Erin O’Toole as party leader in 2020, Andrew Scheer in 2017, and Stephen Harper in 2004.

Around the world[edit]

Americas[edit]

• Argentina
  • 2019 Argentine general election
• Chile
  • 2017 Chilean presidential primaries
• Colombia:
  • In the 2006 presidential elections, the Liberal Party, and the socialist Alternative Democratic Pole held primary elections, electing Horacio Serpa as the Liberal candidate, and Carlos Gaviria as candidate of the Alternative Democratic Pole.
  • In the 2010 presidential elections, four parties held primary elections: The Liberal Party elected former minister Rafael Pardo as candidate, the Democratic Pole elected senator Gustavo Petro, the Conservative Party chose ambassador Noemi Sanin, and the Green Party chose former mayor of Bogota Antanas Mockus.
• Costa Rica: the country’s three main political parties, the National Liberation Party, the Social Christian Unity Party, and the Citizens’ Action Party, have all run primary elections on several different occasions.^{[citation needed]}
• Uruguay
  • 2019 Uruguayan presidential primaries

Europe[edit]

• Armenia:
  • On 24 and 25 November 2007, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation political party conducted a non-binding Armenia-wide primary election. The party asked the people of their recommendation of who they should nominate as their candidate for the upcoming presidential election. What characterized it as a primary instead of a standard opinion poll was that the public knew of the primary in advance, all eligible voters were invited, and the voting was by secret ballot. «Some 68,183 people . . . voted in make-shift tents and mobile ballot boxes . . .»^[59]
• France
  • The Republicans (France) presidential primary, 2016
  • French Socialist Party presidential primary, 2017
• Hungary
  • 2021 Hungarian opposition primary
• Italy
• Poland
  • 2019 Civic Platform presidential primary
  • 2020 Confederation Liberty and Independence presidential primaries
• Portugal
  • 2014 Portuguese Socialist Party prime ministerial primary
• Russia: United Russia has held primaries for its candidates to the State Duma, Russia’s lower-house of parliament.^{[citation needed]}
• United Kingdom
  • Conservative Party parliamentary primaries

Asia[edit]

• Hong Kong
  • 2020 Hong Kong pro-democracy primaries
• Republic of China (Taiwan):
  • 2019 Democratic Progressive Party presidential primary
  • 2019 Kuomintang presidential primary
• South Korea
  • 2017 South Korean presidential election
  • United New Democratic Party presidential primaries

Oceania[edit]

• Australia
  • The Australian Labor Party and the National Party have conducted limited experiments with primary-style pre-selections.^[60][61]
  • In 2018, the New South Wales branch of the Liberal Party rejected a motion by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott to have primary-style preselections.^[62]

See also[edit]

• Leadership election, a similar process used to select the party’s internal leadership instead of a candidate for external office
• Sore loser law, which states that the loser in a primary election cannot thereafter run as an independent in the general election

Notes[edit]

References[edit]

• Bibby, John, and Holbrook, Thomas. 2004. Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis, 8th Edition. Ed. Virginia Gray and Russell L. Hanson. Washington D.C.: CQ Press, pp. 62–100
• Brereton Charles. First in the Nation: New Hampshire and the Premier Presidential Primary. Portsmouth, NH: Peter E. Randall Publishers, 1987
• The Center for Election Science. Electoral System Summary

• Cross, William P., Kenig, Ofer, Pruysers, Scott, and Rahat, Gideon. 2016. The promise and challenge of party primary elections: a comparative perspective. Montreal.
• Hershey, Majorie. Political Parties in America, 12th Edition. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. pp. 157–73
• Jeremias, Ralf. «Primary Elections in the USA: Between Republicanism and Democracy». Topos. Journal for Philosophy and Cultural Studies, 1/2021, pp. 55-72.
• Kendall, Kathleen E. Communication in the Presidential Primaries: Candidates and the Media, 1912–2000 (2000)
• Primaries: Open and Closed
• Palmer, Niall A. The New Hampshire Primary and the American Electoral Process (1997)
• Scala, Dante J. Stormy Weather: The New Hampshire Primary and Presidential Politics (2003)
• Ware, Alan. The American Direct Primary: Party Institutionalization and Transformation in the North (2002)], the invention of primaries around 1900 —they were promoted by regular party leaders as well as reformers online

External links[edit]

• The Green Papers – Voter Eligibility
• How Political Primaries Work at HowStuffWorks

‘Primary election’ is the term used in America for the elections which will select the two parties presidential nomination. The primary elections start in January of election year in what is called the “primary season“. A good start to the primaries is considered vital if a candidate is to become his party’s presidential nomination – however, George W Bush bucked this trend in the 2000 primary season by making a poor start but ultimately winning the Republican Party’s nomination.

Since 1952 the first primary election has traditionally been in New Hampshire. It is the first real test of opinion and receives a great deal of publicity from the media. As a result a number of other states have tried to bring forward their primaries but the biggest contender to New Hampshire in terms of importance has been the decision by 21 mostly Southern states to hold their primaries on the same day in what has become known as “Super Tuesday“. Originally this was on March 8th 1988, but it is now usually held on the second Tuesday of March in election year.

There are a variety of ways in which the elections at a local level are held. These can almost be seen as the heats in an athletics meeting. If you win this you move on to the next one, the semi-finals (state party elections) and if you win this, on to the final itself. One is the caucus system. Others are the so-calledprimaries : closed primaries, open primaries and blanket primaries. 

Regardless of their title, the primaries are designed to give as much democracy as is deemed possible to local politics. This is not so true for the caucus system.

The word “caucus” itself comes from the Native People of America and means “to gather together andmake a great noise.” 

This seems rather appropriate but this system of electing a presidential nominee is becoming less and less popular as it puts a great deal of power in the hands of local party bosses and the fear is that the beliefs of the people themselves at a local level are not necessarily listened to. 

By 1980 only 25% of the delegates to the national conventions (coming from 18 states) were voted for in this way. In 1988, only 16% of the Democrats delegates were selected in this manner while just under 21% of Republicans were. The figure has continued to shrink with only 12 Republican state parties using the caucus system in 1996 with the Democrats using it in only 14 states.

What is a caucus?

A caucus is a series of party meetings at every level of party organisation within a state; wards, precincts, districts and counties. At each level, party members vote for delegates who will take their opinions on the choice of presidential candidate forward to the next level. Ultimately the state conventions choose the delegates to the national convention. 

Caucus meetings tend to be dominated by party activists who are sufficiently committed to the party’s cause to take part in each stage. Supporters of the caucus system believe that it leads to the best candidate being selected. However, meetings are closed (i.e. not opened up to anyone other than a party member) and historically they were linked to a small group of men in Congress and in state legislatures who selected party candidates for national and state office including presidential candidates. 

As a result of this apparent lack of a democratic approach, fewer and fewer states are using this type of selection. Many feel that the system allows the local ‘big-wigs’ in politics to dominate a ward, precinct etc. and that any final choice of presidential candidate is not really representative of those at the caucus but purely the views of such political figures who dominate at a local level.

This system allows a broader participation of voters to express their views on who should represent the party at the next election. In some primaries you do not have to be a party member to vote.

Closed primaries offer a greater degree of participation than caucuses in that voting is not confined to party members. Those voters who have declared an affiliation to a party are allowed to participate in that party’s primary. This declaration can literally be done as the voter enters the polling office with a statement that s/he voted for the Democrats at the last election and that they intend voting in this primary; assuming this was a Democrats primary !!

Open primaries allow even greater participation. The voters of a state, regardless of their party affiliation, can participate in either party’s primary but not both. The advantage of this system is that it allows the most popular candidate to be put forward and one who will have appeal across party lines. This, of course, is an advantage. But the purely democratic nature of this system is open to abuse as in the past there have been cases whereby Democrats, for example, have legally voted at a Republican primary, though not at their own, but have voted for what was the worst candidate. The Republicans have done likewise at Democratic primaries. Twenty nine states use this system of voting.

Blanket primaries offer the widest possible participation. Voters are allowed to vote in both primary elections of the parties – i.e. at both the Republican and Democrat primaries.

States also vary in the way they allocate delegates to the presidential candidates. Some primaries use the ‘winner-take-all’ system (WTA) whereby the candidate who wins the most votes at a primary gets all of the delegates.

The alternative system is the proportional representation primary (PR) which allocates delegates in proportion to the number of votes they received in the primary. The Democrats have used PR since 1969 in an effort to increase the voice of the minority groups and to broaden the appeal of the candidates. However in recent years the party has used WTA  in larger primaries and some of the larger states favour such a system as they feel that WTA  increases their political clout in the overall nomination process of the presidential candidate.

Some primaries are also called “advisory primaries” as the elected delegates to the national convention do not have to follow the views of the voters and they are free to follow their own preference for presidential candidate. However, the voters have expressed their advice – hence the title – on the ballot paper.

Other primaries are called “mandatory primaries” or “binding primaries” as the views of the voters with regards to the presidential candidate are binding on the delegates and the delegates at the national convention cast their votes accordingly. 

However, this was successfully challenged in 1982 when the Supreme Court declared that a state could not force a delegate to a national convention to support the winner of his/her state’s presidential primary (Democratic Party v La Follette).

1.

n

разговор, беседа; pl переговоры

more peace talks are going to take place / getting underway / lie ahead — переговоры о мирном урегулировании будут продолжены

to bar smb from talks — не допускать к участию в переговорах

to complete / to conclude talks — завершать переговоры

to damage the talks — вредить / мешать / препятствовать переговорам, подрывать переговоры

to derail / to disrupt the talks — срывать переговоры

to expel smb from the talks — исключать из состава участников переговоров

to extend one’s talks for another day — продлевать переговоры еще на один день

to force smb into talks — принуждать к переговорам

to go somewhere for more talks with smb — ехать для продолжения переговоров с

to hamper the talks — вредить / мешать / препятствовать переговорам, подрывать переговоры

to have / to hold further / more talks with smb — проводить дальнейшие переговоры / продолжать переговоры с

to join smb in the talks — включаться в переговоры, принять участие в переговорах

to leave smb out of talks — не допускать к участию в переговорах

to maintain one’s talks for 10 days — продолжать переговоры еще 10 дней

to make good / substantial progress at / in the talks — добиваться значительного / существенного успеха на переговорах

to make smb more flexible in the talks — заставлять занять более гибкую позицию на переговорах

to obstruct the talks — вредить / мешать / препятствовать переговорам, подрывать переговоры

to re-launch / to reopen talks — возобновлять переговоры

to restart / to resume talks — возобновлять переговоры

to soften one’s position in talks — смягчать позицию на переговорах

to stymie the talks — вредить / мешать / препятствовать переговорам, подрывать переговоры

to torpedo the talks — вредить / мешать / препятствовать переговорам, подрывать переговоры

to walk out of / to withdraw from talks — уходить с переговоров, отказываться от продолжения переговоров

— accession talks
— after a full day of talks
— ambassadorial talks
— ambassadorial-level talks
— another round of talks gets under way today
— arduous talks
— arms control talks
— arms talks
— backstage talks
— barren talks
— beneficial talks
— bilateral talks
— bittersweet talk
— border talks
— breakdown in talks
— breakdown of talks

— businesslike talks
— by means of talks
— by talks
— call for fresh talks
— carefully prepared talks
— cease-fire talks
— CFE talks
— coalition talks
— collapsed talks
— completion of talks
— conduct of talks
— confidential talks
— confrontational talks
— constructive talks
— conventional arms control talks
— conventional forces in Europe talks
— conventional stability talks
— conventional talks
— conventional-force talk
— cordial talks
— crux of the talks
— current round of talks
— deadlocked talks
— delay in the talks
— detailed talks
— direct talks
— disarmament talks
— discreet talks
— disruption of talks
— divisive talks
— early talks
— election talk
— emergency talks
— equal talks
— Europe-wide talks
— exhaustive talks
— exploratory talks
— extensive talks
— face-to-face talks
— failure at the talks
— failure of the talks
— familiarization talks
— farewell talks
— final round of talks
— follow -up talks
— follow-on talks
— force-reduction talks
— formal talks
— forthcoming talks
— four-way talks
— frank talks
— fresh round of talks
— fresh talks
— friendly atmosphere in the talks
— friendly talks
— frosty talks
— fruitful talks
— fruitless talks
— full talks
— full-scale talks
— further talks
— get-to-know-you talks
— good-faith talks
— hard-going talks
— highest-level talks
— high-level talks
— in a follow-up to one’s talks
— in the course of talks
— in the last round of the talks
— in the latest round of the talks
— in the talks
— inconclusive talks
— indirect talks
— industrial promotion talks
— informal talks
— intensive talks
— intercommunal talks
— interesting talks
— interparty talks
— last-ditch talks
— last-minute talks
— lengthy talks
— low-level talks
— make-or-break talks
— man-to-man talks
— marathon talks
— MBFR talks
— meaningful talks
— mediator in the talks
— membership talks
— ministerial talks
— more talks
— multilateral talks
— Mutual and Balanced Force Reduction talks
— news lockout during the talks
— no further talks are scheduled
— non-stop talks
— normalization talks
— nuclear and space arms talks
— observer at the talks
— offer of talks
— on-and-off talks
— Open Skies Talk
— open talks
— outcome of the talks
— pace of the talks
— participant in the talks
— parties at the talks
— pay talks
— peace talks
— pep talk
— political talks
— positive talks
— preliminary talks
— preparatory talks
— present at the talks are…
— pre-summit talks
— pre-talks
— prime-ministerial talks
— private talks
— productive talks
— profound talks
— programmatic talk
— proposed talks
— proximity talks
— rapid progress in talks
— rapprochement talks
— realistic talks
— renewal of talks
— resumed talks
— resumption of talks
— reunification talks

— sales talks
— SALT
— scheduled talks
— secret talks
— security talks
— sensible talks
— separate talks
— serious talks
— session of the talks
— setback in the talks
— sincere talks
— stage-by-stage talks
— stormy talks
— Strategic Arms Limitation Talks
— Strategic Arms Reduction Talks
— substantial talks
— substantive talks
— successful progress of the talks
— summit talks
— talk was conducted in an atmosphere
— talk was held in an atmosphere
— talk will be dominated by the row which…
— talks about talk
— talks are alarmingly behind schedule
— talks are at a standstill
— talks are critical
— talks are deadlocked
— talks are due to resume
— talks are getting nowhere
— talks are going ahead
— talks are going well
— talks are heading for deadlock
— talks are in doubt
— talks are in high gear
— talks are in jeopardy
— talks are into their final day
— talks are not going fast enough
— talks are only a start
— talks are progressing at a snail’s pace
— talks are progressing smoothly
— talks are progressing well
— talks are set to fail
— talks are stalemated
— talks are still on track
— talks are taking place in a constructive atmosphere
— talks are underway
— talks at a ministerial level
— talks at the highest level
— talks at the level of deputy foreign ministers
— talks between smb have run into last-minute difficulties
— talks between the two sides
— talks bogged down on smth
— talks broke down
— talks came to a standstill
— talks center on smth
— talks collapsed
— talks come at a time when…
— talks concentrate on
— talks dragged on for years
— talks ended in agreement
— talks ended in failure
— talks ended inconclusively
— talks ended without agreement
— talks failed to make any progress
— talks faltered on smth
— talks foundered on smth
— talks get underway
— talks go into a second day
— talks go on
— talks had a successful start
— talks had been momentous
— talks hang by a thread
— talks hang in the balance
— talks have been constructive and businesslike
— talks have broken up in failure
— talks have ended on an optimistic note
— talks have ended with little sign of agreement
— talks have ended with little sign of program
— talks have fallen through
— talks have got off to a friendly start
— talks have got off to a successful start
— talks have made little progress towards peace
— talks have never been closer to an agreement
— talks have reached deadlock
— talks have reopened
— talks have run into difficulties
— talks have run into trouble
— talks inch forward
— talks is burgeoning again about…
— talks made progress
— talks may continue into tomorrow
— talks may not get off the ground
— talks now under way
— talks of peace
— talks of procedural nature
— talks on a range of issues
— talks on conventional stability
— talks open
— talks overran by half an hour
— talks overshadowed by smth
— talks produced no results
— talks reconvene
— talks remain deadlocked
— talks restart
— talks resume
— talks stalled over the issue
— talks under the auspices of smb
— talks went into the small hours of the morning
— talks went late into the night
— talks went on late into the night
— talks went smoothly
— talks were due to start a month ago
— talks were not conclusive
— talks were suspended
— talks were warm, friendly and cordial
— talks will cover smth
— talks will focus on smth
— talks will go ahead
— talks will take place at the undersecretaries of foreign affairs level
— talks will yield an agreement
— talks with smb are not acceptable
— talks with the mediation of smb
— talks without preconditions
— talks would make little headway
— the agreement was signed at the end of 5 days of talks
— the area affected in the talks
— the outcome of the talks is not easy to predict
— the pace of the talks is slow
— the progress of the talks
— there was a sense of achievement at the end of the talks
— this problem will be at the heart of the talks
— those in the talks
— three days of talks have failed to make any tangible progress
— three-sided talks
— three-way talks
— too much talks and not enough action
— top-level talks
— touchstone of progress in the talks
— trade talks
— trilateral talks
— tripartite talks
— two-way talks
— umbrella peace talks
— unconditional talks
— United Nations-mediated talks
— United Nations-sponsored talks
— unity talks
— unofficial talk
— unproductive talks
— unscheduled talks
— useful talks
— walkout from the talks
— weighty talks
— wide range of talks
— wide-ranging talks
— workmanlike talks
2.

v

вести беседу, разговаривать

to talk to smb direct — вести с прямые переговоры

to talk to smb through a third party — вести переговоры с через посредника

1. What is a primary election in simple terms?
2. What is the primary system?
3. What is a political party caucus?
4. When were primary elections introduced?
5. What is called a general election?
6. What is a midterm election?
7. What does runoff mean in politics?
8. What does the Constitution say about presidential elections?
9. What was meant by proportional representation?
10. What is a party caucus quizlet?
11. What is it called when party members meet to nominate a candidate for office?
12. What is a unpledged delegate?
13. What is bypoll election?
14. What’s a political party platform?
15. Whats a closed primary?

What is a primary election in simple terms?

Primary elections, often abbreviated to primaries, are a process by which voters can indicate their preference for their party’s candidate, or a candidate in general, in an upcoming general election, local election, or by-election.

What is the primary system?

January to June of election year – States and parties hold primaries Primary: an election held to determine which of a party’s candidates will receive that party’s nomination and be their sole candidate later in the general election.

What is a political party caucus?

A caucus is a meeting of supporters or members of a specific political party or movement.

When were primary elections introduced?

Florida enacted the first presidential primary in 1901. The Wisconsin direct open primary of 1905 was the first to eliminate the caucus and mandate direct selection of national convention delegates.

What is called a general election?

A general election is a political voting election where generally all or most members of a given political body are chosen. These are usually held for a nation, state, or territory’s primary legislative body, and are different from by-elections (only one electorate goes to election).

What is a midterm election?

Midterm elections in the United States are the general elections that are held near the midpoint of a president’s four-year term of office, on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. … Midterm elections historically generate lower voter turnout than presidential elections.

What does runoff mean in politics?

Runoff voting can refer to: Two-round system, a voting system used to elect a single winner, whereby only two candidates from the first round continue to the second round, where one candidate will win. Instant-runoff voting, an electoral system whereby voters rank the candidates in order of preference.

What does the Constitution say about presidential elections?

The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for …

What was meant by proportional representation?

Proportional representation (PR) characterizes electoral systems in which divisions in an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body. … The essence of such systems is that all votes contribute to the result—not just a plurality, or a bare majority.

What is a party caucus quizlet?

party caucus. a meeting of the members of a party in a legislative chamber to select party leaders and to develop party policy.

What is it called when party members meet to nominate a candidate for office?

Today, in 48 states, individuals participate in primaries or caucuses to elect delegates who support their presidential candidate of choice. At national party conventions, the presidential contender with the most state delegate votes wins the party nomination.

What is a unpledged delegate?

In American politics, a superdelegate is an unpledged delegate to the Democratic National Convention who is seated automatically and chooses for themselves for whom they vote. … Superdelegates are not involved in the Republican Party nomination process.

What is bypoll election?

A by-election, also known as a special election in the United States and the Philippines, or a bypoll in India, is an election used to fill an office that has become vacant between general elections. … In some cases a vacancy may be filled without a by-election or the office may be left vacant.

What’s a political party platform?

A political party platform, party program, or party manifesto is a formal set of principle goals which are supported by a political party or individual candidate, in order to appeal to the general public, for the ultimate purpose of garnering the general public’s support and votes about complicated topics or issues.

Whats a closed primary?

In Nevada, Federal/State Primary Elections are «CLOSED.» That means if you chose Democratic or Republican as your party on your Voter Registration Application, you may vote only for candidates from your own party and you may also vote in nonpartisan contests.