SIUC political scientist John S. Jackson III studies the way our presidents are chosen.

Political scientist John S. Jackson III thinks the presidential primary sweepstakes give too much weight to New Hampshire. "They're weird voters," he says. Illinois, he argues, is more representative of national trends than that less diverse northeastern state (which held its primary February 20) or the small state of Iowa (which held its caucuses February 12). But Jackson, dean of the College of Liberal Arts at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, says he can prove the complaint isn't mere chauvinism. In fact, he co-wrote a book on the subject, The Making of a Primary: The Illinois Presidential Primary — 1912-1992, with political scientist David H. Everson of the University of Illinois at Springfield and Nancy L. Clayton, a doctoral candidate at SIU. The book traces the rise of primaries (and the decline of conventions) as a means for choosing party nominees. Jackson says Illinois historically has been a "bellwether" state in presidential elections. We also helped spark the shift to primaries. Q. How is Illinois more like the nation than New Hampshire? A. By any dimension you measure, the people of Illinois are more representative of the nation: the mixture of the economy between urban and rural, between manufacturing and agriculture; the racial, ethnic, minority makeup; the big cities versus the farms. New Hampshire and Iowa are in no way a microcosm of the nation. Q. Would it alter the politics of Illinois if we had the intense media exposure of Iowa and New Hampshire? A. It might or might not. But I think it almost certainly would alter the politics of the presidential selection process. Illinois would alter it in a positive way, in my estimation, because it would be a more fair test of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates, particularly when you combined Illinois with Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan. That's a pretty good test of who's going to be a strong candidate for president.

Q. Would it get us better presidents?

A. That's a terribly important question. And probably impossible to prove, because "better" lies in the eyes of the beholder. It would get us more representative candidates; that is, candidates with limited appeal would have less chance of winning these big states than they now have of emerging because they're the flavor-of-the-day in New Hampshire.

Q. Is Illinois similar to the rest of the nation in voting behavior?

A. Absolutely. Illinois rarely strays significantly from the national outcome. Jimmy Carter in '76 and Woodrow Wilson in 1916 were the only two presidents elected this century without carrying Illinois. And, even though Illinois didn't vote 'correctly' in the win-loss column in those years, we were only a couple of percentage points off.

Q. Is voter turnout in the two major parties similar to the national trend?

A. It's very close to the national trend. And the rest of that story is that Illinois has two very competitive parties. A lot of states only have one party, or a party and a half. That, too, illustrates the larger argument. Again — to beat up on New Hampshire— New Hampshire always votes for the Republicans. It's a very unusual state.

Q. Between 1912 and 1968, primaries weren't the biggest factor in choosing nominees. What brought about the change?

30 * March 1996 Illinois Issues

A. If you had to put a single causal point on it, you'd say the Democratic Party convention held in the great city of Chicago in 1968. That convention, as you know, was so divisive that it's become part of our political lore. It was the riots in the streets, the hippies, the Chicago Seven [trial]. If you've seen any of the media coverage, it was just awful, very conflict-ridden. It was the undoing of Hubert Humphrey's possibilities for winning the presidency against Richard Nixon. Out of that, the Democratic Party resolved to start some changes internally so that people at the grass-roots level would have more of a role in the selection of presidential candidates. That led to the significant increase in the use of presidential primaries, and, thus, to the significant enhancement of their role in the selection of our presidential nominees. So, it really all started in the streets of Chicago in 1968. Q. Was it easier or better when the conventions played a bigger role in choosing the candidates? A. It was easier in the sense that there were fewer players. The political leadership, the party leaders, the political elites could make the deals. The big city mayors in the case of the Democratic Party and the big state governors in the case of the Republican Party could get together at the convention. And if someone's bandwagon was rolling, they'd throw their whole state delegation to that person and push them over the top in a big dramatic movement. It was easier in the narrow sense that a few players had a lot of power.

Now, we've got literally hundreds of thousands of voters all playing a role in that mixture of who's going to win the primaries and who's going to win the caucuses. But what that's done is to downgrade the importance of the national conventions. By the time of the national conventions, we know who the nominee is going to be. We only have the question of how bloody it's going to be, or what will the platform fights be. The Republicans are going to have a big fight over abortion rights this time, for example. Those kinds of things can still hurt the party, but the question of who's going to be the Republican nominee will be long since settled by the time they get to San Diego in August. Q. Did the changes after 1968 and 1972 also change the way the campaigns were run? A. Absolutely. Campaign strategy used to be almost exclusively directed toward the political party leaders — people who controlled blocks of delegates, like Mayor Richard J. Daley or like a governor. You put together endorsements of leading political figures, you made trades with them, deals with them. If you entered primaries, it was to show you had some grass-roots appeal: John Kennedy showing that even though he was a Catholic he could win in very Protestant West Virginia. You had a point to make to the party leaders, who then decided if you had done well in the primaries. The media had relatively little role to play in all of that, as did the grassroots voters. All of that's turned upside down now. The grass-roots voters and the media drive the whole system now. You've got to win hundreds and thousands and millions of voters now. And that's the American tradition. Although, by the way, we're the only nation in the world to do it that way.

Nominating Calendar This year, most of the primaries and caucuses are bunched into this month. In fact, political scientist John Jackson notes that three-quarters of the delegates on both sides will be selected by the end of March. Jackson, who has studied the presidential selection process, is the dean of the College of Liberal Arts at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. The Illinois primary will be held March 19. We'll be joined by Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. This month's primary sweep begins on the 2nd in South Carolina and ends with California on the 26th. In between, primaries will be held in: Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New York Florida, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas and Washington. Another four states will hold caucuses: Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada and Utah. Pennsylvania will hold a primary in April. Six states and the District of Columbia will hold primaries in May: Indiana, North Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Arkansas and Kentucky. Idaho will hold a caucus that month. Alabama, Montana, New Jersey and New Mexico will hold their primaries in June. The states of Virginia and Wyoming have not settled on dates.

Illinois Issues March 1996 * 31

DIALOGUE

Approximately three-quarters of the delegates will be selected by the end of March.

Q. What has it done to the state's political parties to have these big campaigns come in to organize? A. I think the general answer is that it has undermined the parties to some extent. In many states it's pretty clear. It's a little more complicated than that in Illinois. Our strong parties mean that when the campaigns come in they try to recruit strong party leaders. For example, right now Gov. Jim Edgar is in favor of Sen. Bob Dole, but Secretary of State George Ryan [had] endorsed and [was] working for Phil Gramm. So the national organizations come into Illinois and try to recruit as many Illinois politicians as they can, unlike some states where they have totally cut out the party. But, having said that, yes, the party has a lesser role than it used to have. Q. What will Illinois' role be with a primary that's shared on March 19 with several other Midwestern states? A. The cycle started out being spread from February through June. The big states, California and New York, for example, got tired of not counting in this. By the time it got to New York and California, it was all over. And they kept saying, "Hey, this is not fair. We're the biggest states in the union, and little New Hampshire has decided the outcome and four months later we're superfluous." So California and New York and a number of other big states moved back to March this time. That means approximately three-quarters of the delegates on both sides will be selected by the end of March. It's going to be over by the end of March. Q. Do you think there will ever be a day when all the primaries will be held at approximately the same time? A. There's a de facto movement in that direction now. And there is the movement for a national primary that would be a single day. A lot of people favor that, but there are some problems with it. I think what's going to happen is more likely a window of about two months, with several de facto regional primaries. The Super Tuesday primary, which is the week before Illinois, is effectively a southern primary now, with some add-ons, March 19 has, by happenstance, become a Midwestern primary. Q. What do you think it will take to get the national media's attention away from New Hampshire and Iowa?

For More Information John Jackson has another book coming out this year on presidential politics. He's written The Politics of Presidential Selection with William Crotty. And Congressional Quarterly serves up profiles of the presidential contenders in its Candidates '96. CQ has also published a Guide to the 1996 Presidential Election by Michael L. Goldstein. Meanwhile, Charles Lewis takes a close look at the financial realities of the race to the White House. The Buying of the President examines sources of contributions to the major candidates. For a more philosophical look at leadership and governing, U.S. Sen. Bill (maybe he will run for president, maybe he won't) Bradley has a book out — Time Present, Time Past: A Memoir. And if you want to get serious about this, delve into Garry Wills' book, Certain Trumpets: The Call of Leaders. Then you may be ready for fun with the fictional Primary Colors, published anonymously. Insiders say it's modeled after President Bill Clinton's 1992 race.

32 * March 1996 Illinois Issues

A. That's a good question. The fact is the person who won the New Hampshire primary for the Democrats last time did not win the presidential nomination. Paul Tsongas won. So New Hampshire is not quite the kingmaker it once was. A couple of losses like that will undercut their validity to some extent. What I think needs to happen is for the parties to say to Iowa and New Hampshire, "You can go on the following day, and so will several other states." And that will dilute their importance and they'll go away. My favorite outcome anyway. Q. I'm sure it's going to be interesting for you to see the results of this primary, to see if it does follow the pattern that's been set. A. I see Illinois as having two roles. One is what we call a confirming role for a front runner who's already looking good but needs a big win. That was the pattern for Bill Clinton in 1992. Clinton did not have the nomination wrapped up when he came to Illinois. He needed Illinois and Michigan to confirm that he could win outside the South. He had already lost New Hampshire. He then won in the South, in the Super Primary, but he needed a big state like us. And we were a tremendous victory for Bill Clinton in '92, confirming his front-runner status, confirming his momentum, and he was not to be stopped after that. Or, sometimes it confirms that a person is on the ropes and is going to lose. That's what happened to Bob Dole against George Bush in '88. It can be absolutely devastating if you're like Sen. Dole in '88 and needed to win in the Midwest and you lose to George Bush. It was all over for him. So it's had both effects. It's knocked out somebody who was already on the ropes; it's confirmed front-runner status for other people. * Megan Lynch is a reporter for public radio station WSIU in Carbondale.

About the Book The Making of a Primary: The Illinois Presidential Primary —1912-1992, by John S. Jackson III, David H. Everson and Nancy L. Clayton, was published this year by the Institute for Public Affairs at the University of Illinois at Springfield. Even if Iowa and New Hampshire were combined into a state "called "New Iowashire," Illinois would be a better barometer of the nation, according to these three scholars. That mythic combination is explored in their book, which interprets the role of Illinois' primary process from 1912 to 1992. In fact, Illinois is the litmus test for candidates, according to The Making of a Primary. Only two times between 1972 and 1992 did a candidate secure Illinois' votes without winning the national party nomination. Both were Democrats. The first, in 1972, was U.S. Sen. Edmund Muskie of Maine. The second was Illinois' favorite son, Paul Simon, Iowa won the state's primary in 1988. In trying to show how Illinois' primary can make or break a candidate the authors outline each one since 1912. Along the way, they highlight some interesting moments. Illinois was one of only a dozen states to initiate presidential primaries in 1912. In that year, Democratic voters in the state put their marks beside Champ Clark. Republicans supported Theodore Roosevelt. Neither were selected at the national nominating conventions. The eventual nominees were Democrat Woodrow Wilson and Republican William Howard Taft. Illinois voters had very little influence over which candidate became the party nominee at their respective party conventions. Blocks of delegates were not chosen by the voters based on candidate preference. Instead, state party leaders organized their faithful for political deals at the nominating conventions. According to the authors, 1968 might be the only year in primary history that the national media's lens was focused on Illinois instead of New Hampshire and Iowa. That year, Chicago erupted around the Democratic National Convention. The problems at the convention prompted the Democratic National Committee to institute new guidelines in 1970 for conventions and "delegate selection. In 1972 (the year George McGovern won the Democratic nomination), the state's Democrats, led by Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, wanted to assert control. They managed to secure uncommitted delegates in a third of the state's congressional districts. But it was fruitless effort. Daley and his delegates were not seated at the convention in Miami. The incident resulted in a U.S. Supreme Court ruling the following year that essentially gave control of delegate qualifications to the national parties, regardless of state law. The primaries became a major factor in the presidential elections in 1976. While the nominating conventions are still a good venue for parties to hammer out platform decisions, the conventions have become secondary to primaries and caucuses when it comes to selecting the party nominees. Megan Lynch

Illinois Issues March 1996 * 33