1
Racing to the Front: The Effect of Frontloading on Presidential Primary Turnout
Since 1972, the selection of each party’s nominee for president is the responsibility of
state primary voters and caucus goers. The goal of the reforms that produced the current system
was to increase rank and file participation and to allow for greater internal party democracy in
selecting the party nominee. From one perspective, these goals have been met. Because
primaries promote broader participation than caucuses, and one unintended consequence of the
rule changes was a shift by many states from a caucus to a primary delegate selection
mechanism, participation increased. But, at the same time, rules governing when nominating
events are held have changed dramatically, altering the internal dynamics of the process and
potentially depriving some voters of meaningful participation. As a result, these changes
potentially damage some of the democratic gains seen at the onset of the reforms.
Since 1988, there has been an increasing trend for states to schedule their nominating
events earlier in the campaign, a procedure known as frontloading, in an effort to become more
important players in the outcome of the nominating race and to attract increased media and
candidate activity. Certain effects of frontloading are quite visible. First, candidates begin their
campaigns much earlier, often a year before the first scheduled primary. This so-called invisible
primary activity is necessary to create the organization and raise the funds necessary to compete.
Second, once the nominating events begin in the Iowa Caucuses, the winnowing process for
candidates occurs much quicker and the party nominee is determined much sooner. Thus, this
part of the nominating cycle is much shorter. As a result, voters in states that schedule their
primary early in the process have a greater influence in determining the party’s nominee than
voters in later states, decreasing the meaningful participation of some voters’ vis-à-vis other
Convention