Nominating Presidential Candidates
In the year before the presidential election, candidates also begin courting voters by making appearances across the country. Iowa and New Hampshire typically have been the first two states to cast votes in the presidential nominating process, with contests generally in early February of a presidential election year. Because Iowa's caucus is the first test of candidate strength, candidates—particularly those who might be less well-known—often begin visiting the state years before the first ballots are cast. In the months leading up to the Iowa caucus, the candidates crisscross the state in hopes of gaining momentum. New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary generally falls eight days after the Iowa caucuses, and that state also receives a great deal of attention from candidates. Some states have bristled against the outsize influence of Iowa and New Hampshire—particularly because of their lack of demographic diversity—and have sometimes tried to move their primaries earlier in the process. As a result, the parties allowed more diverse states such as Nevada and South Carolina to hold their contests shortly after New Hampshire, and the parties also started putting rules on the primary calendar to stop other states from moving their contests up too early. Beginning in the 1980s, as many as two dozen states hold their presidential primaries on the same date early in March, a day known as "Super Tuesday." Candidates who do poorly on Super Tuesday are unlikely to win their party's presidential nomination, and many candidates performing poorly that day drop out.
The presidential primary and caucus season lasts from early February to some time in June. The months of campaigning are marked by rallies with supporters, town hall meetings with voters, prime-time televised debates among groups of candidates, and a plethora of television campaign ads, particularly in key states. Primaries and caucuses held later in the campaign may have little or no influence on the outcome of the nomination if one candidate has clearly won the backing of enough delegates to win the nomination. Incumbent presidents running for reelection often run unopposed for their party's nomination, making primaries pro forma exercises. Sometimes, though, rivals challenge a sitting president. Senator Eugene McCarthy's strong showing in the New Hampshire primary in 1968 convinced President Lyndon Johnson to withdraw from the race. Senator Edward Kennedy's campaign in 1980 posed a significant challenge to President Jimmy Carter's reelection effort.
The rules for allocating delegates based on primary results vary from state to state. In the "winner-take-all" system typically used by the Republican Party, the candidate who wins the largest number of votes in the primary gets all the delegates at the national nominating convention. In the proportional system, which the Democratic Party requires, candidates get delegates based on their share of the primary vote. Parties also send a few superdelegates to the national convention. In the Republican Party, the superdelegates include the top three members of the state party committee, but they are committed to voting for the candidate who has the backing of the state party delegation. In the Democratic Party, these individuals include political office holders and influential party members, and they are not pledged to support a particular candidate. In 2018, bowing to criticism that these superdelegates might undemocratically skew the results of the primaries and caucuses, the Democrats changed their rules so that these superdelegates would only vote if no candidate won a majority on the first ballot at the national convention.
Presidential Campaign Issues
Particularly since the 1990s, health care policy and immigration have been central issues in presidential campaigns. On health care, candidates have put forth their ideas about how health care should be provided and kept affordable. On immigration, there have been intense debates over how to deal with undocumented immigrants, border security, and how to reform the entire U.S. immigration system.
Candidates' positions on certain hot-button issues (e.g., voting rights, gun control, abortion, and LGBTQ rights) often differ sharply. Because these issues involve questions that touch on fundamental rights, they can lead to lawsuits that reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Since presidents have the power to nominate new Supreme Court justices and generally select nominees who reflect their views, candidates' positions on these issues are important to many voters.
As a result of this certainty, the nature of the convention has changed, and the event—which takes place over several days—is carefully planned to demonstrate party unity and the candidate's central campaign message. The candidate's campaign staff works closely with party leaders to plan virtually every moment of the convention to put the candidate in the most favorable light, particularly because major television news organizations show the evening proceedings live. Major speeches by important party leaders, the actual nomination ballot, and the acceptance speeches of the vice presidential and presidential candidates are all scheduled for the prime-time television hours to capture the widest possible viewing audience.
One of the first events in the convention is adoption of the party platform, a formal set of goals endorsed by a political party. The official party position on a host of issues, the platform generally reflects the eventual nominee's positions. As with other aspects of conventions, platform fights are things of the past, and platform debates generally take place during the day, away from the glare of the television spotlight.
The most important events are the acceptance speeches of the two candidates, with the vice presidential nominee generally coming first. In the earlier days of contested conventions, vice presidential nominees were often selected by party bosses with an eye to balancing the ticket geographically or attempting to unite different factions of the party. The presidential nominee did not always have a voice in the selection, and the choice often came on the last day of the convention. The process has changed completely. While the same political concerns of regional balance and party unity might spur the choice, the presidential candidate makes the selection and usually announces it in advance of the convention. Thus the vice presidential nominee comes to that meeting as a known quantity, and the acceptance speech is full of fulsome praise for the leader of the ticket, as well as attacks on the other party and its nominee. Closing out the convention, the presidential nominee delivers an acceptance speech that sets the themes and tone of the campaign to come.
General Election Campaign
Even though technology has advanced, candidates still engage in traditional campaign tactics. They tour the country giving speeches and interviews with the press to put forth their positions on issues and criticize those of the opposing candidate. Advertisements, mailings, and press conferences are other ways campaigns convey their message. Advertisements on television and radio have long been common, but the advent of the Internet and social media has created new ways for campaigns to specifically target certain segments of the electorate.
During the general election campaign, candidates typically participate in a series of debates, generally with one debate devoted to the vice presidential candidates. These televised events provide candidates the opportunity to argue their position and address or refute the positions of their opponents before an audience. Debates may focus on one set of issues such as foreign policy or domestic policy; journalists ask the questions, though debates sometimes include questions asked by ordinary citizens.
The winner of the campaign is determined by the electoral college, the system by which the president and vice president of the United States are selected by electors from each state and the District of Columbia. Each state has the same number of electoral votes as it has representatives and senators in Congress; the District of Columbia has three. (Until ratification of the 23rd Amendment in 1961, the District of Columbia had no electoral votes.) Electors are selected by state party organizations before the popular vote is held. If their candidate wins the most popular votes in the state, that party's electors get to vote in the electoral college. Electors are generally not bound to vote for a particular candidate, and some elections have at least one faithless elector, a presidential elector who does not vote for the candidate that the elector is pledged to support. Faithless electors have never changed the winner of the electoral college vote.
States with small populations, such as Montana, Wyoming, and Alaska, have only one at-large member of the House, giving them three electors. More populous states, such as California, Texas, Florida, and New York, have more electoral votes. In the vast majority of states, the candidate who wins the popular vote wins all of that state's electoral votes. Maine and Nebraska give two votes—those corresponding to the state's two senators—to the statewide winner but allocate the other electoral votes to the popular vote winner in each congressional district.Although it may seem logical that states with large numbers of electoral votes get more attention from presidential candidates, in practice this often does not happen. In some states, voters strongly favor one political party, making a victory for that party's candidate highly likely. Candidates from both parties may well ignore those states, even if they deliver many electoral votes. Instead, they focus on swing states. A swing state is a state in which no political party dominates, where elections are competitive and either major presidential party candidate has a chance to win. These dozen or so states, also called battleground states, may be larger states rich in electoral votes and thus can be key to forging an electoral majority of 270 electoral votes.
Party Strength in Presidential Elections, 2000-2016
Range of Presidential Election Outcomes
|Popular Vote||Electoral Votes|
|Popular and Electoral Majority: Election of 1980|
|Ronald Reagan (winner)||43,643,00 (50.5%)||489 (90.9%)|
|Jimmy Carter||35,481,000 (41%)||49 (9.1%)||Popular Minority, Electoral Majority: Election of 2016|
|Donald J. Trump (winner)||62,985,000 (46.1%)||304 (56.5%)|
|Hillary Clinton||65,854,000 (48.2%)||227 (42.2%)|
|Popular Plurality, Electoral Majority with Third Party: Election of 1992|
|Bill Clinton (winner)||44,858,000 (42.9%)||370 (68.8%)|
|George Bush||38,799,000 (37.1%)||168 (31.2%)|
|H. Ross Perot||19,741,000 (18.9%)||0|
Should the Electoral College Be Abolished?
The possibility that a number of faithless electors could actually determine the outcome of the election, going against the popular will in one or more states, is another argument used against the electoral college. Though such an event has never occurred, it is offered as a possible negative outcome of reliance on the electoral college system.
Some people urge abolishing the electoral college outright and letting the winner of the popular vote be declared the winner. This would require a constitutional amendment, which is a difficult process. People in states with smaller populations—and fewer electoral votes—generally oppose this change, arguing that such a system would give undue influence to the states with larger populations. In addition, an extremely close and contested popular vote could result in a lengthy and acrimonious process of carrying out recounts in multiple states or even all the states.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has been suggested as a way of making the electoral college irrelevant without amending the Constitution. Under this plan, states pledge, by state law, to award all of their electoral college votes to the candidate who won the popular vote nationwide. This would ensure that there could not be an election in which the winner of the popular vote lost in the electoral college. While at least 11 states have passed laws to abide by this agreement, the number of electoral votes they command does not total a majority. Should enough states enter into the compact and should that result in an election that overturns what would have been a traditional winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes, the outcome would most likely be contested in court.