| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
090239
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In a book published four years ago, Andrew Busch and I divided proposals to reform the presidential nomination process into two categories, which we called comprehensive and incremental (see Mayer and Busch 2004, chapter 5). Like any attempt to classify a complex reality, this distinction blurs a bit at the edges, but the basic idea should be clear. Comprehensive proposals call for major, far-reaching changes in the basic operations of the presidential nomination process; incremental proposals make more limited, marginal changes in the rules, while retaining the fundamental structure of the existing system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
090235
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
There are perhaps many good arguments for Iowa maintaining its "first in the nation" status, in terms of the presidential nomination process. The strongest, however, would seem to be an argument that it is representative of the nation as a whole. That is, somehow, Iowa is a microcosm of the national political forces, faithfully mirroring the relevant electoral structures and choices of the macro-stage. This belief is certainly held by some. Palo Alto County, in northwestern Iowa, has long been considered a presidential bellwether, faithfully voting with the winning candidate in a series beginning in 1916. But as media worthy as that fact might be, it seems most likely a product of chance, for its heavily rural, northern European-descended population make it far from demographically representative of contemporary America (Lewis-Beck and Rice 1992, 4-6). A similar charge is commonly made today against the state as a whole, by political commentators across the land. But is it true? Is Iowa really unrepresentative? That is the question we seek to answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|