Editing Primary election (section)

==In the United States==
The United States is one of a handful of countries to select candidates through popular vote in a primary election system;<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://conversationswithbillkristol.org/transcript/murphy-transcript/|title=Murphy Transcript}}</ref> most other countries rely on party leaders or party members to select candidates, as was previously the case in the U.S.<ref>{{cite book|last=Ginsberg|first=Benjamin|title=We the People: An Introduction to American Politics|url=https://archive.org/details/wepeopleintroduc00gins_325|url-access=limited|year=2011|publisher=W.W. Norton & Co.|location=New York|page=[https://archive.org/details/wepeopleintroduc00gins_325/page/n376 349]|isbn=9780393935233}}</ref>

The selection of candidates for federal, state, and local general elections takes place in primary elections organized by the public administration for the general voting public to participate in for the purpose of nominating the respective parties' official candidates; state voters start the electoral process for governors and legislators through the primary process, as well as for many local officials from city councilors to county commissioners.<ref>{{cite book|last=Bowman|first=Ann|title=State and Local Government: The Essentials|url=https://archive.org/details/statelocalgovern0000bowm|url-access=registration|year=2006|publisher=Houghton Mifflin Co.|location=Boston, MA|pages=[https://archive.org/details/statelocalgovern0000bowm/page/75 75–77]|isbn=9780618522811}}</ref> The candidate who moves from the primary to be successful in the general election takes public office.

In modern politics, primary elections have been described as a vehicle for transferring decision-making from political insiders to voters, though [[political science]] research indicates that the formal party organizations retain significant influence over nomination outcomes.<ref>Cohen, Marty. The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and after Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2008.</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Hassell |first1=Hans J. G. |title=The Party's Primary: Control of Congressional Nominations |date=2018 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-108-42099-0}}</ref>

Studies have found little-to-no difference between top-two and traditional partisan primaries on most outcomes like [[political polarization]],<ref name=":2322">{{cite news |title=California's jungle primary sets up polarized governor's race for November |url=https://theconversation.com/californias-jungle-primary-sets-up-polarized-governors-race-for-november-97772 |work=The Conversation |last1=Kousser |first1=Thad |access-date=2018-06-23 |quote=The idea was that by opening up primaries to all voters, regardless of party, a flood of new centrist voters would arrive. That would give moderate candidates a route to victory[...] Candidates did not represent voters any better after the reforms, taking positions just as polarized as they did before the top two. We detected no shift toward the ideological middle.}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{cite journal |last1=Hill |first1=Seth J. |last2=Kousser |first2=Thad |date=2015-10-17 |title=Turning Out Unlikely Voters? A Field Experiment in the Top-Two Primary |url=https://escholarship.org/uc/item/86v1k0v3 |journal=Political Behavior |volume=38 |issue=2 |pages=413–432 |doi=10.1007/s11109-015-9319-3 |issn=0190-9320 |s2cid=54541384 |quote=Two groups that were predicted by advocates to increase their participation in response to this reform—those registered with third parties or ''no-party-preference'' registrants (independents) who were not guaranteed a vote in any party's primary before the move to the top-two—also show declines in turnout}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last1=McGhee |first1=Eric |last2=Masket |first2=Seth |last3=Shor |first3=Boris |last4=Rogers |first4=Steven |last5=McCarty |first5=Nolan |date=April 2014 |title=A Primary Cause of Partisanship? Nomination Systems and Legislator Ideology |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12070 |journal=American Journal of Political Science |language=en |volume=58 |issue=2 |pages=337–351 |doi=10.1111/ajps.12070 |issn=0092-5853}}</ref> but lower levels of [[Voter turnout|electoral participation]] and more voter confusion<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Manweller |first=Mathew |date=2011-09-01 |title=The Very Partisan Nonpartisan Top-Two Primary: Understanding What Voters Don't Understand |url=https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/elj.2010.0070 |journal=Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy}}</ref> under [[Nonpartisan primary|nonpartisan primaries]].<ref name=":2322" /><ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Patterson |first=Shawn |date=2020-12-01 |title=Estimating the unintended participation penalty under top-two primaries with a discontinuity design |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261379420301116 |journal=Electoral Studies |volume=68 |pages=102231 |doi=10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102231 |issn=0261-3794}}</ref>

=== History ===
The [[direct election|direct primary]] became important in the United States at the state level starting in the 1890s and at the local level in the 1900s.<ref>Alan Ware, ''The American direct primary: party institutionalization and transformation in the North'' (Cambridge UP, 2002).</ref> The first primary elections came in the Democratic Party in the South in the 1890s starting in Louisiana in 1892. By 1897 the Democratic party held primaries to select candidates in 11 Southern and border states. Unlike the final election run by government officials, primaries were run by party officials rather than being considered official elections, allowing them to exclude [[African Americans|African American]] voters. The US Supreme Court would later declare such [[white primary|white primaries]] unconstitutional in ''[[Smith v. Allwright]]'' in 1944.<ref> Michael J. Klarman, "The White Primary Rulings: A Case Study in the Consequences of Supreme Court Decisionmaking". ''Florida State University Law Review'' (2001).  29#1: 55–107 [https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1625&context=lr online].</ref>

The direct primary was promoted primarily by regular party leaders as a way to promote party loyalty.<ref> Ware, 2003.</ref>  Progressive reformers like [[Robert M. La Follette]] of Wisconsin also campaigned for primaries, leading Wisconsin to approve them in a 1904 referendum.<ref>Robert C. Nesbit, ''Wisconsin: A History'' (1973) 412-415.</ref><ref>Irvine L. Lenroot, ''Wisconsin Magazine of History'' 26#2 (1942), pp. 219–21. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/4631524 online]</ref>

Despite this, presidential nominations depended chiefly on party conventions until 1972. In 1968, [[Hubert Humphrey]] won the Democratic nomination [[1968 Democratic Party presidential primaries|without entering any of the 14 state primaries]], causing [[1968 Democratic National Convention protests|substantial controversy at the national convention]]. To prevent a recurrence, Democrats set up the [[McGovern–Fraser Commission]] which required all states to hold primaries, and the Republican party soon followed suit.<ref>Karen M. Kaufmann,  et al., "A Promise Fulfilled? Open Primaries and Representation," ''Journal of Politics'' 65#2 (2003): 457-476. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/3449815 online] </ref>

===Non-partisan===
Primaries can be used in [[political parties|nonpartisan]] elections to reduce the set of candidates that go on to the general election (''qualifying primary''). (In the U.S., many city, county and school board elections are non-partisan, although often the political affiliations of candidates are commonly known.) In some states and localities, candidates receiving more than 50% of the vote in the primary are automatically elected, without having to run again in the general election. In other states, the primary can narrow the number of candidates advancing to the general election to the top two, while in other states and localities, twice as many candidates as can win in the general election may advance from the primary.{{cn|date=March 2024}}

===Blanket===
When a qualifying primary is applied to a partisan election, it becomes what is generally known as a blanket<ref>{{cite web| url=http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/blanket-primary/|title=Blanket Primary Law & Legal Definition|publisher=USLegal.com|access-date=2012-11-07}}</ref> or ''[[Louisiana primary]]'': typically, if no candidate wins a [[majority]] in the primary, the two candidates receiving the highest [[Plurality (voting)|pluralities]], regardless of party affiliation, go on to a [[general election]] that is in effect a run-off.  This often has the effect of eliminating [[third party (United States)|minor parties]] from the general election, and frequently the general election becomes a single-party election. Unlike a [[plurality voting]] system, a run-off system meets the [[Condorcet loser criterion]] in that the candidate that ultimately wins would not have been beaten in a two-way race with every one of the other candidates.

Because many Washington residents were disappointed over the loss of their [[blanket primary]], which the [[The Grange (organization)|Washington State Grange]] helped institute in 1935, the Grange filed [[Popular initiative|Initiative]] 872 in 2004 to establish a blanket primary for partisan races, thereby allowing voters to once again cross party lines in the primary election. The two candidates with the most votes then advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation. Supporters claimed it would bring back voter choice; opponents said it would exclude [[third party (United States)|third parties]] and independents from general election ballots, could result in Democratic or Republican-only races in certain districts, and would in fact reduce voter choice. The initiative was put to a public vote in November 2004 and passed. On 15 July 2005, the initiative was found unconstitutional by the [[U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington]]. The U.S. Supreme Court heard the Grange's appeal of the case in October 2007. In March 2009, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Grange-sponsored Top 2 primary, citing a lack of compelling evidence to overturn the voter-approved initiative.<ref>{{cite web|title=Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican PartyPARTY|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-713.ZO.html|work=18 March 2008|publisher=U.S. Supreme Court|access-date=22 April 2012}}</ref>

In elections using [[electoral system]]s where [[strategic nomination]] is a concern, primaries can be very important in preventing "clone" candidates that split their constituency's vote because of their similarities. Primaries allow political parties to select and unite behind one candidate. However, [[tactical voting]] is sometimes a concern in non-partisan primaries as members of the opposite party can [[Party Raiding|vote for the weaker candidate]] in order to face an easier general election.

In California, under Proposition 14 (Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act), a voter-approved [[referendum]], in all races ''except'' for that for [[President of the United States|U.S. president]] and [[Committeemen and committeewomen|county central committee]] offices, all candidates running in a primary election regardless of party will appear on a single primary election ballot and voters may vote for any candidate, with the top two vote-getters overall moving on to the general election regardless of party. The effect of this is that it will be possible for two Republicans or two Democrats to compete against each other in a general election if those candidates receive the most primary-election support.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/npp.htm|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120118184507/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/npp.htm|url-status=dead|title=California Secretary of State|archivedate=18 January 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/us/politics/10prop.html?hp | work=The New York Times | title=Calif. Voting Change Could Signal Big Political Shift | first=Jesse | last=McKinley | date=9 June 2010}}</ref>

===Partisan===
As a result of a federal court decision in Idaho,<ref>''Republican Party v. Ysursa''</ref> the 2011 Idaho Legislature passed House Bill 351 implementing a closed primary system.<ref>{{cite book| url=http://www.idahovotes.gov/VoterGuide/2012_Voter_Guide_English.pdf?hp |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150122051554/http://www.idahovotes.gov/VoterGuide/2012_Voter_Guide_English.pdf?hp |archive-date=2015-01-22| title=Idaho Voter's Guide|publisher=idahovotes.gov|accessdate=14 June 2021}}</ref>

In May 2024, the [[Republican Party of Texas]] approved at its bi-annual convention an amendment to its party rules that changes its primary from an open primary to a closed primary, in which only voters registered with the Republican party may now vote in the Republican primary election.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Waltens |first=Brandon |date=2024-05-24 |title=Texas GOP Passes New Rule to Close Primaries from Democrat Influence |url=https://texasscorecard.com/state/texas-gop-passes-new-rule-to-close-primaries-from-democrat-influence/ |access-date=2024-06-02 |website=Texas Scorecard |language=en-US}}</ref> State law in Texas currently mandates open primaries, where voters select which primary to vote in when they go to vote rather than affiliating with a party prior to the primary. 

Oregon was the first American state in which a binding primary election was conducted entirely via the internet. The election was held by the [[Independent Party of Oregon]] in July, 2010.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://blog.oregonlive.com/opinion_impact/print.html?entry=/2010/08/e-voting_not_ready_yet.html |title=E-voting? Not ready yet. |publisher=oregonlive.com |access-date=2010-08-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208190237/http://blog.oregonlive.com/opinion_impact/print.html?entry=%2F2010%2F08%2Fe-voting_not_ready_yet.html |archive-date=8 December 2015 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

===Presidential primaries===
{{Main|United States presidential primary}}

In the United States, [[Iowa caucus|Iowa]] and [[New Hampshire primary|New Hampshire]] have drawn attention every four years because they hold the first [[caucus]] and [[U.S. presidential primary|primary]] election, respectively, and often give a candidate the momentum to win their party's nomination. Since 2000, the primary in [[South Carolina]] has also become increasingly important, as it is the first [[Southern United States|Southern]] state to hold a primary election in the calendar year.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Corasaniti|first=Nick|date=2020-02-29|title=Highlights From the South Carolina Primary and Joe Biden's Big Win|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/south-carolina-primary-02-29|access-date=2021-01-29|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

A criticism of the current presidential primary election schedule is that it gives undue weight to the few states with early primaries, as those states often build momentum for leading candidates and rule out trailing candidates long before the rest of the country has even had a chance to weigh in, leaving the last states with virtually no actual input on the process. The counterargument to this criticism, however, is that, by subjecting candidates to the scrutiny of a few early states, the parties can weed out candidates who are unfit for office.

The [[Democratic National Committee]] (DNC) proposed a new schedule and a new rule set for the 2008 presidential primary elections. Among the changes: the primary election cycle would start nearly a year earlier than in previous cycles, states from the West and the South would be included in the earlier part of the schedule, and candidates who run in primary elections not held in accordance with the DNC's proposed schedule (as the DNC does not have any direct control over each state's official election schedules) would be penalized by being stripped of [[Delegate (American politics)|delegate]]s won in offending states. The ''New York Times'' called the move, "the biggest shift in the way Democrats have nominated their presidential candidates in 30 years."<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/washington/20dems.html?ei=5088&en=38453b959671a1ec&ex=1313726400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1165943241-jwmnrClCdt4iLvvEJ27tmA |title=Democrats Set Primary Calendar and Penalties |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=20 August 2006}}</ref>

Of note regarding the DNC's proposed 2008 presidential primary election schedule is that it contrasted with the [[Republican National Committee]]'s (RNC) rules regarding presidential primary elections. "No presidential primary, caucus, convention, or other meeting may be held for the purpose of voting for a presidential candidate and/or selecting delegates or alternate delegates to the national convention, prior to the first Tuesday of February in the year in which the national convention is held."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gop.com/About/AboutRead.aspx?AboutType=4&Section=16 |title=GOP.com |publisher=Gop.com |access-date=2009-01-30 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081130075808/http://www.gop.com/About/AboutRead.aspx?AboutType=4&Section=16 |archive-date=30 November 2008 }}</ref> In {{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}}+4-({{CURRENTYEAR}} mod 4)}}, this date is February {{weekday in month|first|Tuesday|February|{{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}}+4-({{CURRENTYEAR}} mod 4)}}}}.

Candidates for U.S. President who seek their party's nomination participate in primary elections run by state governments, or caucuses run by the political parties. Unlike an election where the only participation is casting a ballot, a caucus is a gathering or "meeting of party members designed to select candidates and propose policies".<ref>{{cite book|last=Bardes|first=Barbara|title=American Government and Politics Today: The Essentials 2011-12 Edition|url=https://archive.org/details/americangovernme0000bard|url-access=registration|year=2012|publisher=Wadsworth|location=Boston, MA|page=[https://archive.org/details/americangovernme0000bard/page/300 300]}}</ref> Both primaries and caucuses are used in the presidential nomination process, beginning in January or February and culminating in the late summer political party conventions. Candidates may earn convention delegates from each state primary or caucus. Sitting presidents generally do not face serious competition from their party.

===Primary classifications===
While it is clear that the closed/semi-closed/semi-open/open classification commonly used by scholars studying primary systems does not fully explain the highly nuanced differences seen from state to state, still, it is very useful and has real-world implications for the electorate, election officials, and the candidates themselves.

As far as the electorate is concerned, the extent of participation allowed to weak partisans and independents depends almost solely on which of the aforementioned categories best describes their state's primary system. Open and semi-open systems favor this type of voter, since they can choose which primary they vote in on a yearly basis under these models. In closed primary systems, true independents are, for all practical purposes, shut out of the process.

This classification further affects the relationship between primary elections and election commissioners and officials. The more open the system, the greater the chance of raiding, or voters voting in the other party's primary in hopes of getting a weaker opponent chosen to run against a strong candidate in the general election. Raiding has proven stressful to the relationships between political parties, who feel cheated by the system, and election officials, who try to make the system run as smoothly as possible.

Perhaps the most dramatic effect this classification system has on the primary process is its influence on the candidates themselves. Whether a system is open or closed dictates the way candidates run their campaigns. In a closed system, from the time a candidate qualifies to the day of the primary, they tend to have to cater to partisans, who tend to lean to the more extreme ends of the ideological spectrum. In the general election, under the assumptions of the [[median voter theorem]], the candidate must move more towards the center in hopes of capturing a plurality.