The Primary and Caucus System in U.S. Elections

11:00 A.M. EST

Real Audio of Briefing

MR. DENIG: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Washington Foreign Press Center. Welcome, also, to journalists at our New York Foreign Press Center.

Today we're having the second in our series of briefings on "Elections 2004," which we hope will provide very useful information to you as you attempt to cover the intricacies of our political system.

We're very pleased today to have as our briefer, Mr. Curtis Gans, the Director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, and he is going to deal with the topic, the primary and caucus system in the U.S. elections and how that leads to the nomination of the candidates of the political parties. He'll have an opening presentation to make, and then after that will be glad to take your questions.

Mr. Gans.

MR. GANS: Thank you. I'm here to explain the inexplicable. Many of you come from countries where you have parliamentary systems, where you have fairly ideological parties, where the normal process is that the party holds meetings of its elected officials to determine who their leader will be, and then the public votes, you know, for that party; and the leader assumes power.

In the United States, historically, the way we change our directions within not very ideological parties, although they are more ideological now than any time in my lifetime, is through the way we choose our nominees for President.

I'm going to try to give you a small, historical overview. Back in the late 1800s, we had the same two parties that we have now: Democrats and Republicans. The presidential nominee was selected as it is officially now, by a national convention.

The delegates to the national convention, essentially, were hand picked by the state leaders of each party. The contest tended not to be over ideological divisions in the party, but rather, a judgment on one hand as to who would be most electable, and a judgment on the other hand, who would provide the most patronage and benefits for the largest number of people who were at the convention.

The first change in that system occurred because of the progressive movement shortly after the turn of the 19^th toward the 20th century, in which they fought for something which was adopted by the major parties, which is essentially -- but particularly for state office holders and national office holders below the level of president, but also partially for the level of -- level of presidents, we would institute the primary. Now, they did so because they were concerned about corrupt and oligarchical rule.

At this point, you can -- and so, the primary came into being. At this point, you can fast forward to the 1940s, '50s, and early 1960s in which, essentially, there were in about, I guess, 10 states -- maybe 12, primaries. And we had a process, indeed, in which what the primary served to do is test the appeal of the candidates, also test which direction, you know, parties wanted to go in.

But the final decision, essentially, was made by a convention, and it was made mostly in the same process, which is a convention -- the overwhelming majority of whose delegates were basically selected by party leaders through what we will get into down the road, a caucus process. But that primary process tended to affect the ultimate decision.

In 1952, I believe, you know, the process yielded Henry Cabot Lodge, you know, beating Robert Taft. Robert Taft was the representative of the conservative element of the Republican Party. Lodge was the representative of the liberal element. What you ended up with was the liberal element winning and Eisenhower became the nominee.

In 1960, John F. Kennedy competed against Hubert Humphrey for the party's nomination. And through a succession of primaries, Kennedy beat Humphrey, went to the convention with the popular momentum, and although there was a lot of effort to try to stop him, Kennedy won.

In 1964, it was the Republican Party, which had the division between Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller -- Nelson Rockefeller representing the liberal wing, Barry Goldwater representing the conservative wing. And it, you know, took until the last primary, which, historically, had been in June, you know, in California for Goldwater to essentially seal his ascendancy, you know, and get the nomination.

The fundamental change in the, you know, the way that process of a series of small individual primaries leading to a convention of delegates that were mostly handpicked by party leadership, occurred in the aftermath of a 1968 presidential nominating convention. And I should say, I had some personal experience involved in that, because in 1967 I organized something called the "Dump Johnson Movement," and ended up to be Staff Director of Eugene McCarthy's campaign.

And what we found in that process was that we lost narrowly, but won the delegates in New Hampshire, won overwhelmingly in Wisconsin, and that either Robert Kennedy, who was anti-Vietnam War, or us, won all the succeeding primaries. And yet, when you came to the convention, you know, we had about one-third of the vote.

So there was a commission created prior to the convention headed by an Iowa Senator by the name of Harold Hughes that looked at the process. And what they found in the process was, you know, not unsurprisingly, that the majority of the delegates were elected through a caucus system. But that, you know, but the people who, you know, attended the caucuses were people who were selected before any candidates were running in the primaries, so that they essentially were beholden to the state party leaders who, in turn, for a variety of reasons, you know, having to do with both ideology but mostly, you know, patronage and other things were tied to the incumbent president.

Now, the Hughes Commission issued a report and then the party formed a commission under Senator George McGovern. And that commission insisted and set rules that would provide a number of things -- some of them contradictory -- but the critical things were that no process to elect delegates to the convention could start before the calendar year in which the nomination was going to be held.

It also tied the process to identification with a candidate so that you could no longer have unpledged delegates. It also, you know, adopted other things like quotas for women and quotas for minorities and things like that.

Well, under the, you know, because, you know, of those rules, many more states moved to having primaries, you know? And you ended up with a convention that a) nominated George McGovern, but perhaps most importantly for future things, kicked out the mayor of Chicago from the convention because he didn't follow the procedures, you know, thereby probably ensuring that the Democrats would lose the city of Chicago.

After that convention, there was something -- there was a retrenchment. People decided that having all the delegates selected by this process was not a particularly good idea, that there should be some places reserved for, you know, prime elected officials within the party, including the Democratic National Committee, and, you know, prime officials in the states. And so they moved to have some portion of the convention reserved for these ex-officio delegates.

We still had, at that point, probably 90 percent of the delegates being selected through the primary process. Most of the changes that occurred were driven by the Democratic Party's desire, you know, after '68 and '72, to get it right. And then you move to a -- and the Republicans essentially followed upon -- along.

The next thing that happened of major consequence happened in the aftermath of the 1984 nominating process. In 1984, the Democrats nominated Walter Mondale. For a variety of reasons, Walter Mondale lost by a landslide, and people in the Democratic Party in the South attributed the loss of Walter Mondale and the loss of some of their own fortunes to the fact that the Democratic Party nominated somebody too liberal.

And so, what about eight southern states decided to do was, one, move up their primaries further, you know, toward the front of the calendar. At that time, essentially, what you had was a series of sequential primaries that began in late February and continued to the first week in June. All the southern and southwestern states, 15 of them, moved their primary to one day in March.

The idea was, through this primary we can, you know, exert more influence on the ideology of our nominee and create a more conservative nominee. The best-laid plans didn't quite work.

They held 15 primaries on one day, and five of them were won by the Reverend Jesse Jackson. Five of them were won by Michael Dukakis, who was the northern liberal; and five of them were won by the then southern candidate in 1988, which was Al Gore.

But having the South move their primaries up, you know, and therefore, in theory, exerting a greater influence, enticed other states to move their primaries up so that they could exert influence. And increasingly, you ended up with a basically truncated primary system in which the winner -- you know, the process began some time ever earlier in February and was ended by the middle of March.

Now, thanks to the intervention of Democratic Party Chairperson Terry McAuliffe, you have a primary on March 2^nd in which the states of New York, California, Texas, Florida -- essentially the most populous states in the country -- are all having a primary on the same day. California used to be, you know, one of the three or four last primaries, but they got tired of shipping money and then not having, you know, any role in the decision-making because they were so late.

The result of it all is that we have what is probably a terrible nominating system. It's a terrible nominating system because, on the one hand, where the primary process used to be was a primary process in which you had a sequence of individual primaries.

Somebody could win New Hampshire with a minimal amount of money, go on to the next state, you know, while raising money, and eventually build somebody's popularity so that they would have enough money in June to compete in the California, Ohio and New Jersey primaries, which used to be on those dates.

Now, it is virtually impossible in a three week -- or four week period, between the New Hampshire primary and this primary, in which you have, you know, about half the delegates or a little more being selected -- to do that. You have to raise money in advance.

So the first thing we have is, you know, candidates starting their campaign a year before a single vote is cast, having to raise, you know, conservatively, you know, $30 or $40 million before the first primary so that they can compete in this mega-primary, which is, by the way, why Howard Dean opted out of the presidential, you know, public financing system.

It means that instead of the arbiters of presidential, you know, candidacy seriousness being the voters, it becomes the journalists, you know, through a whole series of self-appointed criteria: whether you've raised enough money; how you're doing in the polls; whether you've won the Iowa Straw Poll or the Florida Straw Poll. You know, we establish frontrunners before a single vote, you know, a single vote is cast.

With the exception of the handful of primaries that precedes the March 2nd primary, you have moved to a system in which there is no grassroots activity. You cannot conduct grassroots activity amongst 60 million people who will be voting on March 2nd.

So, essentially, what we will have created is a television advertising and tarmac campaign. Candidates, you know, all the money being poured into television, the rest being a situation in which, you know, candidates will appear at airports in order to get three minutes on the nightly news. And you will see a diminished involvement of the citizenry compared to what happens where you have retail politics.

You will, you know, the parties will, if they're lucky, emerge with a satisfactory nominee on March 2nd. But if they don't, there's no time for any recourse because there aren't sufficient, you know, contests after that to reverse the result. And essentially, you will be building into, you know, the process -- you will be creating a process where everything is over in March and you will have to rekindle interest, you know, in September, when the majority of the public focuses on campaign.

Our primaries come, and, it is my fond hope at some point we will go back to elongating the process, you know, and making it possible for people without the wherewithal to get into the game, and making it possible for people to make rational decisions over time over the most important office in, probably, the most important nation in the world. We have eliminated, or reduced the potential for rational decision-making.

Primaries in this country come in essentially three types: They, you know, they are simple. You have a closed primary; you have a semi-open primary; and you have an open primary. A closed primary is a primary in which only representatives of -- people who have either registered, or in some other way identify with a particular party, can vote in those parties' primaries. A semi-open primary is something like New Hampshire where the voting is open to people of the party and people who register as Independents. And an open primary is a primary in which people -- the whole electorate can vote in the primary.

The advantaged of open primaries are that they somewhat increase turnout. The disadvantage of the primary is that people from the opposition party in a year like this, where there is no contest in the Republican Party, could create mischief in the Democratic Party.

The primary process is, you know, is pretty, is pretty direct. You know, essentially the candidates select slates of delegates. And when you vote for the candidate, you're voting for that slate of the delegates, and the delegates go to national conventions.

Fifteen states select their nominees by caucus. Caucuses are party -- you know, primaries are run by, you know, by and large, with one or two exceptions, by the normal election machinery of the state. People go to their normal polling places to cast polls, you know, to cast votes.

Caucuses are run by the political parties themselves. You know, the gatherings, which will occur, occur in people's living rooms or some hired public building. People come to those places and essentially declare themselves for X, Y or Z candidate, and if they have a majority in those places, they will elect delegates to the next level in, you know, in proportion to their numbers.

Now, if, in those caucuses you have a split or multiple, you know, group of people, they tend to work out deals, you know, in order to get some representa -- you know, some coalition representation in which some of the candi -- with some of the candidates who have at least 15 percent of the vote at the caucus, you know, get representation at the district conventions. Then you move to the district convention, which, you know, selects people for a state convention, and then the state convention selects people for the national convention.

The virtue of caucuses is that they, unlike a mega-Tuesday, involve lots of grassroots organizational activity. The vice of it is that the turnout in caucuses is substantially lower. You know, it is only the party faithful, and only the party faithful that can be organized. Now, you have in your packets at Washington Times article, which showed the different between Missouri in a presidential primary having a voter turnout of 745,000 to a caucus in Missouri, which had a turnout of 20,000 statewide.

Now what this means if, you know, on one level, you can say it's a nice thing for the caucuses to have all this grassroots activity and it's clearly party people. On another level, it gives enormous advantage to strong, organized, ideological minorities. And you have been witnessing this, you know, week an article which essentially said that five states had been moved, you know, had been moved from holding primaries in their states to caucuses in their states.

Now, one element of that move is cost. But another element of that move is party ideology. In four of the five states, or three and a half of, you know, the five states, the move was made by Republican-controlled legislatures. Because of the way we district -- create voting districts for our representatives to Congress and our representatives to the state legislatures, we have created, essentially, an overwhelming majority of districts for those two offices in which they're designed to produce the results that one party wins, a one-party district, which means in our system that the most important election for those districts is not the general election, because that's foreordained, but the primary election.

The average turnout for a Republican statewide primary -- for senator or governor -- is 8 percent of the electorate. It is smaller than that for Congress. That, in turn, means that an organized minority of 3.5 percent of the electorate can win the primary and be tantamount to being elected.

If you want to explain the general rightward drift of the Republican Party over the last 30 years, it is in that phenomenon, because the organized, zealous element of the Republican Party is the religious and secular right. Those people now are in state legislatures. When they argue, you know, that they want to move from, you know, primaries to caucuses, what they're really suggesting -- in an uncontested race, you know, in which George Bush, you know, barring some catastrophe for him, will be the nominee -- is that they want to be the delegates to the convention in order to continue the current platform on abortion and a number of other issues, you know? And that's the likely result of this move.

I don't know that I haven't, at this point, exhausted my wisdom and probably overspent my time, but that's, I guess, what you want to call Nominating System 101. And hopefully you will have questions, and hopefully I haven't totally confused you, because the whole thing is very confusing.

MR. DENIG: Okay. We'll be glad to take your questions now. If, as usual, use the mike, please, and identify yourself and your news organization. We'll start right up here, please.

QUESTION: Sebastian Hesse with the German Public Radio. What makes Iowa and New Hampshire so special?

MR. GANS: Well, history. Okay? You know, history and their zealous defense of keeping their position as the first races, although when I was doing the McCarthy campaign, the, you know, the first race was New Hampshire. The second thing was the Minnesota caucuses, and the third thing was the Wisconsin primary. Iowa decided to get into, you know, into the act somewhat later in the game.

The problem with the March 2nd mega-Tuesday is that is emphasizes Iowa and New Hampshire. You know, it used to be if you had sequential primaries, somebody could do not so well in Iowa or New Hampshire but do well now, or later.

But we do have a few primaries -- South Carolina, Arizona, I think Michigan's party-run party that run before that. And as you saw, you know, Joe -- Senator Lieberman and, you know, General Clark have opted out of the Iowa caucuses, and may, you know, down the road, opt out of the New Hampshire primary. Clark might be advised to stay. You know, but Lieberman, probably not.

But it -- because of the front-loading of the system, it becomes much harder to adopt a strategy that doesn't, you know, force you, you know, to try to win one of those two contests. There's nothing wrong with those states' contests. I mean, the demography, you know, is not typical of the demography of the Democratic Party every place. But there's no history to suggest, you know, that the produce unrepresentative results.

But in the best of all possible worlds, you would probably try to follow these up with, you know, several other individual primaries that would reflect the ethnic or regional or other differences, and that, at this point, doesn't exist.

Sir.

MR. DENIG: Okay. Let's go to Michael right here.

QUESTION: Michael Backfisch, German Business Daily, Handeslblatt. You said that the parties are more ideological than any time in your lifetime.

MR. GANS: Right.

QUESTION: What does that mean for the turnout of the caucuses and primaries? What does it mean about the likelihood of the Democratic candidate, and what does it mean for national elections turnout and the constellation of the candidates?

MR. GANS: Well, as you may or may not know, I have often been called the Chicken Little of American political analysts because of all my doom and gloom predictions about voter turnout -- and if Margaret wants to invite me back to talk about that issue, I'd like to do that. I will be more forceful and eloquent because I'm dealing with some -- a subject that I'm unequivocal about.

You know, let me start at the end of it. My guess is that this will be a high turnout election. You know, probably not anywhere near the levels of the 1960's, but this presidency, for better or worse, has served as a lightning rod.

And my guess is that there will be major -- because most of the issues that are likely to divide in this election are big issues, they're not small issues, they're, you know: there are various aspects of the economy; there are various aspects of foreign policy; there are various aspects of the role of government; there are various aspects of the issue of honesty; there's various aspects of -- they're big issues and they're felt. And we probably have a more interested and roiled up electorate than in any time since 1992.

So, now, what does it mean for turnout in the primaries? If the issue is decided by March 2nd, you know, the later primaries will have very low turnout. What it means for March 2nd primaries, you know, the turnout, for instance, in New Hampshire, which was a record in, you know, the New Hampshire primary in the year 2000, will not be as high. It may be equally high on the Democratic side, but there won't be any contest on the Republican side, so it won't be.

Republic turnout will be lower except, you know -- no, Republican turnout in primaries will be lower. It's too early to tell what Democratic turnout will be. I never worry a lot about turnout in primaries except as an indicator for the fall election, because primaries and caucuses are and should be for the active and interested of each party. You know, it's the shape and direction of their party that they're doing.

There is not going to be a contest in the Republican Party. Whereas, there are differences between the Democratic candidates, the differences are like that compared to their differences with the Republican Party. You know, I think the largest amount of Democrats in the country are essentially saying, at this point, "I don't care who gets this nomination. All I want to do is beat George Bush." So then, sort of the atavism that existed, you know, previous years, with pitting Democrat against Democrat on more broadly ideological grounds isn't there this time around.

I know of a lot of Democrats who are just waiting until this is all over to make their contributions. So my guess is that the turnout in the Democratic primaries, with the Wild Card of the degree of mobilization that, you know, Howard Dean is willing, you know, is able to produce is likely to be lower than the turnout in the early primaries of 2000, but won't be indicative of what the turnout will be in the fall.

This is a judgment call, and that's looking at tealeaves. Did I answer your question?

QUESTION: Just one, one quick follow-up. You said the national turnout will be very high.

MR. GANS: Higher.

QUESTION: Higher. What's your guess? How much will it be compared to 2000, and maybe also a guess concerning Iowa and New Hampshire compared with 2000?

MR. GANS: Well, I mean, you know, actually, you know, the General Election turnout in 2000 was about 54 percent of eligibles -- you know, in citizen eligibles. My guess is, you know, it will go up, you know, to about 58 or 59 percent. I don't think because of various systemic factors affecting voter turnout over the years that we can go back to a level that existed, you know, in the 1960s, which were, effectively, even the mid-60 and to 70 percent range.

And to give you an example, there was, for California, a relatively high turnout for the recall in the Schwarzenegger election. But that's going to turn out to be about 48 percent of citizen eligibles, you know, maybe even up to 49, which isn't the highest turnout since 1982, but that's not saying a lot since most every election after 1982 that was a mid-term election set new records for low turnout. And it' s well below any presidential election and any election, you know, prior to 1976, '74.

So there's an upward limit, from my point of view, you know. I would guess we'd be about 58 points or 59. I don't do caucus turnout. I mean, I'm, you know, I don't touch it because I don't think the figures are very good, you know, on a comparative basis, so that question I'm not even going to answer.

The turnout in New Hampshire, was, if my recollection is correct, about 46 percent or 47 percent of eligibles -- I'd say, you know, I'd say between 50 and 60 percent of that, because you're not going to have a contest in the Republican Party. That's as close as I can say.

MR. DENIG: Do you think that the turnout in New Hampshire, just among Democrats, , will be a higher percentage or a lower percentage versus 2000?

MR. GANS: It will probably be a higher percentage than 2000, but not because of Democrats, you know, because, you know, the Independents don't have any -- you know, in 2000, the Independents had two places to go, which was John McCain and Bill Bradley, and, you know, I mean they basically favored those two candidates. They only have one place to go now which is whatever the -- however they feel about the Democratic candidates.

So because there's no contest in the Republican Party, it's likely to, you know, produce a slightly higher turnout in the Democratic Party, but not particularly because they're, you know, Democrats, but because they're Independents.

MR. DENIG: What kind of a primary is it in New Hampshire, by the way?

MR. GANS: It is what I called a semi-open one, which is essentially, Republicans can't vote in the Democratic primary, but Independents can. And, you know, one of the changes in New Hampshire law -- it used to be that if you registered Independent and decided to vote in a party primary, you would lose your Independent status forever. You, you know, you could go to the other party in the next primary, but you could never be an Independent again. You know, now you can return your Independent status while voting in, you know, one of the other parties' primaries.

MR. DENIG: The gentleman back there, please.

QUESTION: My name is Jerry (ph) Imadi from the Syrian TV. It is very confusing to follow all these details and tactical movements of the party members in each state, but if you could please simply tell me, beside New Hampshire and Iowa, how many other primaries are there, and the impact of each one on the candidate, what to expect in the following primary? Where would it lead the candidate to? How we should look and evaluate the situation of the candidate if one wins in one? How is it -- is he going to do in the next one?

MR. GANS: Well, what I'm just, right here, going to look at is the schedule, okay? We don't know what's going to happen with the District of Columbia primary. You know, the Party says because it occurs before Iowa and New Hampshire, they won't recognize the results.

You know, Iowa is on, you know, January 19th. If Representative Gephardt doesn't win that or essentially tie it, you know, his campaign will be hurt because he won it the last time he ran. It's in his home base. And people will think that his candidate is -- candidacy is somewhat weaker than it should be to carry forward.

If he wins it, he lives to fight another day and, you know, could be a quite durable candidate because, with the exception of New Hampshire, there are states that, you know, that occur after that where he might have favorable territory.

The New Hampshire primary, beyond being the most over-covered event in American politics except for the presidential campaign as a whole -- I mean New Hampshire is wonderful. You know, my favorite New Hampshire story came from the 1976 primary campaign in which a friend of mine was covering for the Arizona -- for the New Mexico- Albuquerque newspaper, and there was a living room meeting of about ten people with candidate Morris Udall, and he accosted one of the people after the meeting and the person said -- he asked, "What did you think of the candidate?" And the person said, "Well, he seems to be a nice guy, but I really can't make a judgment until I get a chance to talk to him personally." Which is the expectation of citizens in New Hampshire. No place else.

You know, so when, you know, New Hampshire renders its judgment, if, as it now looks -- but many things could change -- Dean beats Kerry handily, Kerry's campaign will be severely weakened because there's no reason why he couldn't have at least an equal claim to, you know, New Hampshire in the neighboring state.

On February 3rd, there are a whole series of primaries -- Arizona, Delaware, Missouri, South Carolina and Oklahoma, and, you know, North Dakota and New Mexico caucuses. Of those, I would assume that South Carolina, Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma would be looked on as bellwethers for their region. For instance, Senator Lieberman, and I think, you know, down the road, General Clark, will be looking at the South Carolina primary, you know, as the major starting point for his campaign -- both for their campaign.

It's too early to tell who the major players will be in the southwestern primaries. Missouri is the biggest primary of that day, but one assumes that Congressman Gephardt will win that primary and, you know, therefore nothing has changed.

Michigan will be another test, particularly, you know, for Gephardt and for the winner of the New Hampshire primary. Michigan is a big industrial state with a high labor union presence. Again, the presumption of Michigan would be Gephardt. And if he doesn't do well there, he's probably -- you know -- if he doesn't do well there, both in Iowa and there, he's probably out of the race. But if he does well in both, you know, he looks -- he would then look like one of the long-distance runners.
February 10th, you know, is Tennessee and Virginia, which will give, along with South Carolina, another indication of whether -- who has pulling power in the South. It should be understood that the Democratic Party in the South is not necessarily representative of the South. You know, what happened when we passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is we enfranchised a large number of African-Americans who had previously been listed as eligible but, you know, were denied the vote everyplace. But we also, you know, created -- prior to 1965; all the decisions in the South had been made by a one-party, whites-only, Democratic primary. Most of the conservatives that were controlling that Democratic Party in 1965 and before have moved to the Republican Party.

You know, the Democratic Party in the South is much more heavily dominated by minorities than in any other region in the country, you know, plus moderates and liberals, and some vestigial conservatives. But, so that the result, as I told you, like the southern primary that was created after 1984, may not be representative of the South, but should, for instance, Howard Dean win New Hampshire, it would behoove him to do well in one of these three primaries -- South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia, so that he could argue for his appeal, you know, beyond the northeast.

The next significant contest is on February 17th, the Wisconsin Presidential Primary. You would think -- Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Democratic Party is a traditional liberal Democratic Party, and you would think that the more liberal of the Democratic candidates would have a better chance of winning that one -- and I know that state because I ran, you know, a campaign. It's not all liberal. You know, it's not liberal in Green Bay, it's not liberal south of Milwaukee, but it's pretty liberal in the Democratic constituency there.

As such, it still probably is a test of, you know Dean's staying power if he wins in New Hampshire. It will be because it's a very open primary, not in terms of who can vote, but in terms of the fact that, more so than many states, Wisconsin party leadership is not really in control, you know, and this is very much a grassroots state. It will essentially, you know, be a test of some of the candidates, you know, whether they can maintain a degree of credibility.

You know, and any movement, you know, essentially you move into the monster: California, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota caucuses, New York, Ohio -- all holding primaries at the same time. That will be one of the two years -- two sets of primaries that will probably decide things. The other will be, you know, on March 9th, which will be, essentially, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, which will give an idea of how the South will go at the convention.

I think that's all I can say, because it's, you know, a lot's speculative. We don't yet know what the candidates' tactics will be, you know, who being in single digits will opt out of New Hampshire and go someplace else for their first test. That's going to all unfold. We don't even know for certain that there won't be other candidates getting in.

MR. DENIG: I've been handed a question for the next one, and that is, “within the Democratic Party, for how many votes are delegates to the conventions bound by the primary or caucus result and how important is that?”

MR. GANS: Those who are bound, I think, are only bound at this point, you know, through one ballot. I'm not sure about that, but I think they're only bound through one ballot and then, you know, they can shift their vote after the first ballot. We haven't had a convention that went beyond one ballot, you know, on the Democratic side, I think, since 1952. We did, in 1956, have more than one ballot to select the vice presidential nominee. On the -- I can't remember the last time there was a Republican contest, you know, that went more than one ballot.

We have generally, by virtue of the changes in the nominating process, rendered convention decisions on anything else but policy matters almost irrelevant. I'm a complainer about how little the broadcast media covers the convention. On the other hand, the lack of anything important to decide, you know, tends to make their judgment at least partially correct.

(Laughter.)

MR. DENIG: We'll need to end the formal session at this point, so I want to thank Mr. Gans very much for coming here today and explaining all this to us, and thank you, too, ladies and gentlemen.