Presidential Elections in the United States

In modern politics, nominating campaigns for the presidency are long, complex affairs when a party does not have a sitting president seeking reelection. These campaigns begin with an informal, behind-the-scenes activity. Called the money primary, or invisible primary, this is the early process of narrowing down the probable candidates based on who can raise the most funds for the campaign. Early in the presidential campaign, there may be many candidates for a party's nomination. Because presidential campaigns are extremely expensive operations, one measure of assessing a candidate's chance of election is their fundraising ability. This stage does not determine who will win the nomination; a candidate able to raise large sums of money does not necessarily capture the enthusiasm and votes of party members. Still, candidates who struggle to raise enough money are unlikely to be successful.

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.

The specific issues in presidential campaigns can vary depending on current events, but the economy and national security are top issues that candidates must address. Candidates try to convince voters that their leadership will better promote economic growth, including tax policy and trade, and keep Americans safe from terrorism and other threats.

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.

The first presidential nominating convention was held by the Democratic Party in 1836 and produced Martin Van Buren—handpicked by the popular outgoing president, Andrew Jackson—as the nominee. During the 19th century and into the 20th century, conventions could be raucous affairs, with party bosses meeting behind the scenes to throw their support behind a candidate they favored. Speeches at the convention and demonstrations by delegates on the floor provided lively contests between the supporters of rival candidates. Because the outcome could be uncertain, delegates sometimes needed multiple ballots before coming to agreement. The 1924 Democratic National Convention went through 103 ballots before selecting a nominee, but the last convention to need even a second ballot to choose a nominee was the Republican meeting in 1952. The adoption of the primary system generally means the nominee is known before the convention begins.

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.

Some analysts criticize the electoral college as outdated and undemocratic. Proposals have been made both to reform and abolish the electoral college. One proposed reform would apportion a state's electoral vote according to the proportion of popular votes each candidate won in the state. This would eliminate the imbalance caused by the winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes employed in most states, but it would not guarantee the popular vote winner would win the presidency. Another suggestion is to assign electors to the candidate that won specific congressional districts. Implementing either approach in all states would dramatically change presidential elections and cause candidates to focus their campaigns in different ways. States with many electoral votes, however, are unlikely to individually adopt such a change if other states do not also adopt it.

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.