No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 November 2022
I must admit that, after more than a decade of teaching and researching political parties, I found being selected to and participating in the 1980 Democratic National Convention an exhiliarating experience.
The Alabama delegate-selection process was a very competitive primary with extensive activity by the Carter and Kennedy organizations and by the individual delegate candidates. In varying degrees, the delegate candidates stumped their constituencies with personal appearances, letters, rallies, sample ballots, newspaper ads, group endorsements, and assorted other campaign gimmicks.
The selection process consisted primarily of a statewide primary (1) to allocate Alabama's delegates and alternate delegates among the presidential candidates, and (2) to elect the members of that delegation. Over 500 candidates ran for the 45 delegate and 32 alternate delegate positions in that primary. The primary actually was conducted by congressional district, with 33 candidates running for four delegate and three alternate delegate positions in my CD. The ballot was structured by sex (females listed first) and the voter was instructed to vote for up to four females and up to four males. Delegates were allocated to presidential candidates according to a formula which was roughly proportional; and individual delegates were selected by an equally fair but more complex formula.
page 18 note 1 Milbrath, Lester G. and Goel, M. L., Political Participation (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1977)Google Scholar; Verba, Sidney and Nie, Norman, Participation in America (New York: Harper and Row, 1972)Google Scholar; Kirkpatrick, Jeane, The New Presidential Elite (New York: Russell Sage Foundation and The Twentieth Century Fund, 1976).Google Scholar
page 18 note 2 Clark, Peter B. and Wilson, James Q., “Incentive Systems: A Theory of Organizations,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 6 (Sept. 1961), 134–137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Margaret Conway, M. and Feigert, Frank B., “Motiation, Incentive Systems, and the Political Party Organization,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 62 (December 1968), 1159–1173 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roback, Thomas H., “Motivation for Activism among Republican National Convention Delegates. Continuity and Change 1972–1976,” Journal of Politics, 42 (February 1980), 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 18 note 3 Dahl, Robert A., “The Behavioral Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a Monument to a Successful Protest,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 55 (December 1961), 763–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 19 note 4 Michels, Robert, Political Parties (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1949).Google Scholar
page 19 note 5 Sorauf, Frank J., Party Politics in America (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 4th Ed., 1980), Ch. 11–12Google Scholar; Polsby, Nelson W. and Wildavsky, Aaron B., Presidential Elections (New York: Scribners, 5th Ed., 1980), Ch. 4Google Scholar; Sullivan, Denis G. et al. , Explorations in Convention Decision Making (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1976).Google Scholar
page 32 note 1 Pomper, Gerald M. with Lederman, Susan S., Elections in America: Control and Influence in Democratic Politics, 2nd Ed. (New York: Longman Inc., 1980), chapters 7–8.Google Scholar