McGovern-Fraser Commission explained

The McGovern-Fraser Commission, formally known as Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection [1] was a commission created in response to the tumultuous 1968 Democratic National Convention. Soon after Nixon's electoral victory, the 28-member commission was selected by Senator Fred R. Harris, who was then the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.[2] Senator George McGovern and later Representative Donald Fraser chaired the commission, which is how the commission received its name.[1] McGovern resigned from the commission in 1971 in order to run for president, but would eventually lose the election.

Purpose

The events at and around the Democratic national convention of 1968 left the party in disarray, unable to support its nominee and divided over matters of both substance and procedure. The 1968 convention was disastrous for the Democrats, as much because of the demonstrations and violent police responses outside the convention hall as because of the convention itself. What took place in Chicago went well beyond party leaders’ ignoring one candidate, Eugene McCarthy, who could claim to have demonstrated his appeal to voters in the primaries and nominating another, Hubert Humphrey, who had not entered a single primary. Disgust with the nominating process led Democrats to create a commission that would improve the conditions of how nominees were selected.[3] The convention approved the establishment of a party committee to examine current rules and make recommendations designed to broaden participation and enable better representation for minorities and others who were underrepresented. The McGovern-Fraser Commission established open procedures and affirmative action guidelines for selecting delegates. In addition the commission made it so that all delegate selection procedures were required to be open; party leaders could no longer handpick the convention delegates in secret. The commission recommended that delegates be represented by the proportion of their population in each state. [4] An unforeseen result of these rules was that many states complied by holding primary elections to select convention delegates. This created a shift from caucuses to primaries. The Republican Party’s nomination process was also transformed in this way, as state laws involving primaries usually apply to all parties’ selection of delegates.

The Commission Report

The Commission was mainly concerned with developing rules that would govern the 1972 Democratic convention. The Commission report was written in less than nine months and was divided into two parts, one that recommended 18 guidelines for state parties and the other part recommended steps that were deem ’desirable’ for state parties to take. The report attempted to bring uniformity to the delegate selection process and to give greater influence to those in the past that had a marginal voice, mainly women, blacks and young people (defined as those under 30).

Some of the guidelines are as follows:

“The first guideline ordered state parties to “adopt explicit written Party rules governing delegate selection. It was followed by eight “procedural rules and safeguards” which the commission demanded the applied in the delegate selection process. Specifically, the states were henceforth to forbid proxy voting; forbid the use of the unit rule* and related practices such as instructing delegations; require a quorum of not less than 40 percent at all party committee meetings; remove all mandatory assessments of delegates and limit mandatory participation fees to no more than $10; ensure that party meetings in non rural areas were held on uniform dates, at uniform times and in places of easy access; ensure adequate public notice of all party meetings concerned with delegate selection[5]
Other guidelines included that:

Some controversies over the guidelines:

Effect on presidential primaries

One of the unintended consequences of McGovern-Fraser reforms was an enormous surge in the number of state party primaries. Prior to the reforms, Democrats in two-thirds of the states used elite-run state conventions to choose convention delegates. In the post reform era, over three fourths of the states use primary elections to choose delegates, and over 80% of convention delegates are selected in these primaries. this is true for Republicans as well.[15]

Nominating procedures are determined by states, and there are three basic types of primary. The two simplest primary forms are what are referred to as “open” and “closed” primaries. In the open primary, any registered voter may participate regardless of partisan affiliation. This category also includes states that allow same-day party registration. Conversely, in the closed primary, only same-party registered partisans may participate. Modified-open primaries encompass a broad category of voting rules that are neither fully closed nor fully open for all to participate and include primaries where same-party registrants may participate with “independents,” “unenrolled,” “unaffiliated,” or “undeclared voters.[16] As of the year 2000, 35 % of Democratic primaries and 31% of Republican primaries are closed to registered party members. 41 % percent of Democratic and Republican primaries are open to all registered voters, and the remaining 24% and 28% of Democratic and Republican primaries, respectively, are characterized by modified-open procedures.[17]

Controversy

Any number of authorities criticize the reforms as having created “too much” democracy, or a badly conceived democracy, leaving too much of the nominations decision up to an allegedly uniformed, unrepresented, and/or uninterested electorate.[18] Even before the introduction of the McGovern-Fraser presidential nominating reforms, academics and political practitioners alike wrestled with the questions of nominating procedures, the representativeness of primary electorates, and their implications for democracy. Strong party proponents, worried that primaries dilute party influence over nominations and thus impeded party discipline and effectiveness in governing. Others have contended that the biases inherent in the primary electorates (the overrepresentation of some groups and the under-representation of others) deprive minority groups of their democratic voice.[19]

Beyond the scholarly debates surrounding the direct primary, political parties and their operatives have voiced pragmatic concerns regarding the types of candidates that primaries tend to favor, suggesting that they often produce ideologically extreme candidates who are not always attractive to more moderate, general election voters.[20] The question of representation and the extent to which primary voters reflect the demographic and attitudinal characteristics of nonvoters and rank-and-file partisans generally has been a long-standing concern to students of primary politics. Some scholars conclude that primary voters are demographically unrepresentative of the larger partisan electorate, while others find fewer differences.[21]

References

Notes and References

  1. Web site: McGovern-Fraser Commission created by Democratic Party. JusticeLearning. 2007-09-25.
  2. Web site: Stricherz. Mark. Primary colors. The Boston Globe. 2007-11-23. 2007-09-25.
  3. Cooper, Alexandra L., “Nominating Presidential Candidates: The Primary Season Compared to Two Alternatives,” Political Research Quarterly 54, No. 4 (2001): 771-793. http://www.jstor.org/stable/449234
  4. Web site: Satterthwaite. Shad. How did party conventions come about and what purpose do they serve?. ThisNation.com. 2007-09-25.
  5. Judith A. Center, “1972 Democratic Convention Reforms and Party Democracy,” Political Science Quarterly 89, no. 2 (1974): 325-350 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2149263
  6. Judith A. Center, “1972 Democratic Convention Reforms and Party Democracy,” Political Science Quarterly 89, no. 2 (1974): 325-350 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2149263
  7. Judith A. Center, “1972 Democratic Convention Reforms and Party Democracy,” Political Science Quarterly 89, no. 2 (1974): 325-350 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2149263
  8. Judith A. Center, “1972 Democratic Convention Reforms and Party Democracy,” Political Science Quarterly 89, no. 2 (1974): 325-350 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2149263
  9. Judith A. Center, “1972 Democratic Convention Reforms and Party Democracy,” Political Science Quarterly 89, no. 2 (1974): 325-350 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2149263
  10. Judith A. Center, “1972 Democratic Convention Reforms and Party Democracy,” Political Science Quarterly 89, no. 2 (1974): 325-350 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2149263
  11. John L. Moore, Elections A to Z (Washington D.C.: CQ Press, 2007)
  12. John L. Moore, Elections A to Z (Washington D.C.: CQ Press, 2007)
  13. John L. Moore, Elections A to Z (Washington D.C.: CQ Press, 2007)
  14. Jeffrey L. Pressman and Denis G. Sullivan, “Convention Reform and Conventional Wisdom: An Empirical Assessment of Democratic Party Reforms” Political Science Quarterly, 89, no. 3 (1974): 539-562.
  15. Kaufmann, Karen M., James G. Gimpel, Adam H. Hoffman, “A Promise Fulfilled? Open Primaries and Representation,” The Journal of Politics 65, No. 2 (2003): 457-476. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3449815
  16. Kaufmann, Karen M., James G. Gimpel, Adam H. Hoffman, “A Promise Fulfilled? Open Primaries and Representation,” The Journal of Politics 65, No. 2 (2003): 457-476. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3449815
  17. Kaufmann, Karen M., James G. Gimpel, Adam H. Hoffman, “A Promise Fulfilled? Open Primaries and Representation,” The Journal of Politics 65, No. 2 (2003): 457-476. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3449815
  18. Cooper, Alexandra L., “Nominating Presidential Candidates: The Primary Season Compared to Two Alternatives,” Political Research Quarterly 54, No. 4 (2001): 771-793. http://www.jstor.org/stable/449234
  19. Kaufmann, Karen M., James G. Gimpel, Adam H. Hoffman, “A Promise Fulfilled? Open Primaries and Representation,” The Journal of Politics 65, No. 2 (2003): 457-476. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3449815
  20. Kaufmann, Karen M., James G. Gimpel, Adam H. Hoffman, “A Promise Fulfilled? Open Primaries and Representation,” The Journal of Politics 65, No. 2 (2003): 457-476. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3449815
  21. Kaufmann, Karen M., James G. Gimpel, Adam H. Hoffman, “A Promise Fulfilled? Open Primaries and Representation,” The Journal of Politics 65, No. 2 (2003): 457-476. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3449815