United States, 002 Republican Party

Path: Table of Contents > Essay on Party Politics > Party 001

United States Democratic Party, 001
Variables and Codes for 1950-1962

For the concepts and variables below, use these links to Political Parties: A Cross-National Survey: Institutionalization Governmental Status Issue Orientation Goal Orientation Autonomy Organizational Complexity Organizational Power Organizational Coherence Membership Involvement The "ac" code is for "adequacy-confidence"--a data quality measure ranging from 0 (low) to 9 (high)

Institutionalization Variables, 1.01-1.06

1.01 Year of Origin and 1.02 Name Changes: 1828, ac7
0, ac9; There are several dates that might be cited for the formation of the Democratic party. One seeking the roots of the party may point to the group of "Republicans" led by Thomas Jefferson in the 1790s. Alternatively, one might fix the origin at 1809, when the Republican caucus controlled the organization of the House of Representatives. We have chosen 1828, when a coalition of southerners, westerners, and state-rights northerners backed Andrew Jackson in his campaign for the Presidency against John Quincy Adams. Jackson had lost to Adams in the previous election of 1824, when the contest was among four candidates of the dominant Republican party. With no one receiving a majority of the electoral vote, the decision was made by the House of Representatives, which chose Adams over Jackson despite Jackson's plurality in both popular and electoral vote. In the interim, the Republican party split more sharply into Adams and Jackson supporters, with Jackson men becoming known as "Democrats" while Adams ran as a National Republican. In addition to becoming known as the Democratic party, supporters of Jackson pursued votes in the expanded electorate by systematically organizing committees and conventions to advance his candidacy. (Holt, pp.501-505 and Kent pp.82-83) formally, the party was the Democratic-Republican party, but the term "Republican" was dropped in 1840, which is too early to be counted as a name change. (Goldman, p.1)
1.03 Organizational Discontinuity: 3, ac9; One major split occurred in 1948, when the southern wing of the party- the "Dixiecrats"--bolted from the party and nominated Strom Thurmond as their candidate for President on the States Rights ticket.
1.04 Leadership Competition: 16, ac9; The party's Presidential candidate at election time presents the strongest claim for being regarded as its national leader. Presidential candidates are chosen in open conventions involving thousands of members. Adlai Stevenson was chosen by the 1952 convention to succeed Harry Truman, then President. Although he lost the 1952 election, Stevenson was renominated in 1956--and lost again. John Kennedy won the Democratic nomination as a Presidential candidate in 1960 and won the election.
1.05 Legislative Instability: Instability is .08, ac9; The Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives only once during our time period, when they held 49 percent of the seats in the 1953 54 session. Their high point of representation was in 1959 and 1960, when they held 65 percent of the seats.
1.06 Electoral Instability: Instability is .04, ac9; Elections for the U.S. House of Representatives are held every even-numbered year. There were seven such elections during our time period. The Democratic percentage of the total vote varied from a low of 49 in 1952 to a high of 56 in 1958.
2.01 Government Discrimination: 1, ac9; In virtually all of the states, the electoral laws are designed to benefit both the Democratic and Republican parties at the expense of the minor parties. Generally, this discrimination assumes the form of allowing the two established parties to place candidates on the ballot automatically at elections to public office. Minor parties, however, must usually circulate petitions to obtain a position on the ballot, and petition processes are notoriously complicated and frustrating.
2.02 Governmental Leadership: 3 out of 7 for 1950-56, ac9; 2 out of 6 for 1957-62, ac9; The Democrat Truman was President from 1950 to 1952. Another Democrat, Kennedy, was elected President in 1960 and served in 1961 and 1962, until his assassination in November. He was succeeded by his Vice-President, Lyndon Johnson.
2.03 Cabinet Participation: 4 out of 7 for 1950-56, ac8; 4 out of 6 for 1957-62, ac8; Of course Democrats held Cabinet posts in all three years of the Truman administration during our time period. In addition, the Democrat Martin Durkin served as Secretary of Labor until October, 1953 in the Republican administration of Dwight Eisenhower . Oveta Culp Hobby, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in the Eisenhower Cabinet from 1953 to 1955, was nominally a Democrat in state politics but had supported Republican candidates for the Presidency and thus is not included as representing the Democrats in our accounting. In 1957, Robert B. Anderson (Democrat) was appointed Secretary of Treasury and served throughout Eisenhower's administration.
2.05 Legislative Strength: Strength is .53 for 1950-1956, ac9 and .60 for 1957- 1962, ac9; The Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives only once during our time period, when they held 49 percent of the seats in the 1953 54 session. Their high point of representation was in 1959 and 1960, when they held 65 percent of the seats.
2.06 Electoral Strength: Strength is .50 for 1950-1956, ac9 and .54 for 1957- 1962, ac9; Elections for the U.S. House of Representatives are held every even-numbered year. There were seven such elections during our time period. The Democratic percentage of the total vote varied from a low of 49 in 1952 to a high of 56 in 1958.
2.04 National Participation: 5, ac9; If the United States is divided into four geographic regions--east, central, south, and west--the composition of Democratic party identifiers deviates from the population distribution across regions by an average of 6.2 percentage points in 1952 and 5.5 points in 1960. If the country is divided into eight rather than four regions, however, the average deviation drops to 3.0 for 1952 and 2.7 for 1960. Because of the special relationship between the Democratic party and the south, the cruder division is used in scoring this variable.
2.07 Outside Origin: 5, ac7
Both insiders and outsiders were instrumental in founding the Democratic party. Andrew Jackson himself was a popular general who served from 1823-25 in the U.S. Senate and had run unsuccessfully for the Presidency in 1824. His candidacy was initiated by Tennessee bankers, but anti-banking interests were prominent in his new party. His candidacy was also backed by members of Congress and various politicians at the state and local levels.
Issue Orientation Variables, 5.01-5.15
5.01 Ownership Of Means Of Production: 1, ac7; In general, the Democrats have not advocated governmental control of basic industries, with one exception. They have tended to favor governmental ownership of power facilities in the south and west. The Democrats backed rural electrification programs in their platforms of 1952 and 1956, and in 1960 they called for the development of multi-purpose plans for major river basins-- although they did not push new projects once in office.
5.02 Government Role In Economic Planning: 3, ac9; The Democrats pursued policies of economic planning in both theory and practice. Price controls were favored in both their 1952 and 1960 platforms, and they advocated even more activist economic policies in depressed areas. The agricultural policies of the Democrats relied especially heavily on price supports and production and marketing quotas. The party also continually argued for tax revisions and monetary policies which would combine economic growth with economic justice.
5.03 Redistribution Of Wealth: 1, ac9; In general, the Democrats supported measures for progressive taxation, providing tax relief for lower income groups and higher rates for higher income categories. The Democrats could also be counted on to vote in accordance with their platform declarations on this matter. But they did not advocate any more severe plans for the redistribution of wealth.
5.04 Social Welfare: 3, ac9; According to party platforms, the Democrats consistently favored a mixture of obligatory programs of public assistance and voluntary programs, including aid to the poor, unemployed, and aged along with health care and medical benefits. Moreover, the party platforms advocated from time to time adequate day care facilities for the children of working mothers, a stronger unemployment insurance system, and medical insurance upon retirement. A majority of Democrats in Congress tended to favor these proposals, but southern Democrats tended to side with Republicans in opposing and occasionally defeating implementing legislation.
5.05 Secularization Of Society: 1, ac9; The U.S. Constitution enjoins Congress from making laws for the establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Œdue process amendment to the Constitution as applying the First Amendment to the states, and virtually all of the court's decisions upholding the amendment have concerned state, and not national, action. Congress, however, has taken actions which have given symbolic support to religion in general. In 1952, it memorialized the President to proclaim an annual national day of prayer. In 1954, the phrase Under God was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance. In 1955, the phrase In God We Trust was prescribed for all currency and coins. In 1956, the same phrase was adopted as the national motto (Van Alstyne, pp. 866-868). These actions received bipartisan support in the Congress and usually did not elicit a roll call vote. Some conflict appeared in the Congress in 1966, however, over a proposed Constitutional amendment to allow prayer in public schools. Northern Democratic senators voted 29 to 7 against the measure, while southern Democrats supported it, 15 to 5 (CQ Almanac, 1966, p. 516). On the other hand, northern Democrats have been more supportive of policies which would provide indirect financial aid to Catholic parochial schools.
5.06 Support Of The Military: 5, ac9; During our period, the Democratic party platforms stressed the importance of maintaining an overwhelming military force to insure national security. The Democrats were more likely to seek limits to military spending when they were not in control of the Presidency, but still they did not challenge the need for pervasive security against perceived enemies.
5.07 Alignment With East-West Blocs: 5, ac9; American foreign policy during this period was largely bipartisan in nature, with both parties accepting and cultivating the bipolar East-West division--the U.S. being the central pillar in the Western bloc.
5.08 Anti-Colonialism: 0, ac7; The U.S. was involved in neo-colonial relationships with a variety of countries during our time period. The Latin American countries taken together will provide the reference group for coding this variable. In each of its platforms from 1952 to 1960, the Democratic party pledged to continue Franklin D. Roosevelt's Good Neighbor policy, which rejected armed intervention in Latin American internal political affairs, although economic and political pressures were still employed on occasion to protect investments of U.S. companies.
5.09 Supranational Integration: 1, ac7; The Democrats have been more favorably inclined toward the United Nations than the Republicans, but they have never promoted the idea of the U.N. limiting the sovereignty of the U.S. While the Democrats have also favored tariff reductions as a matter of policy, they have not pushed the notion of a customs union with any set of countries.
5.10 National Integration: 1, ac9; The Democratic party and Democrats in Congress tended to favor policies which would increase the power of the federal government at the expense of the states. On the issue of civil rights, however, southern Democrats consistently split with the northern majority and joined the Republicans in defense of states rights.
5.11 Electoral Participation: 4, ac7; In some southern states, governmental officials of the Democratic party practiced discriminatory application of legal tests to discourage Negroes from voting. At the national level, however, the party supported universal suffrage in the context of civil rights.
5.12 Protection Of Civil Rights: 3, ac9; Platform statements of the Democratic party continually stressed the need to end discrimination in economic advancement, housing, education, and public accommodations, but the performance of southern Democrats in Congress served instead to obstruct civil rights legislation. Because the southerners in the Senate could and did block civil rights bills by delaying tactics, the party's score on this variable is compromised by the sharp difference between program and practice.
5.13 Interference With Civil Liberties: 2 for 1st half, ac9; -3 for 2nd half, ac9; The Democratic party has never alleged the private ownership of mass media, and its platform statements have always endorsed the principle of freedom of information--implicitly limiting this to political material and excluding material that would be offensive to public morals. But during the first part of our period, a majority of Democrats in Congress did vote to restrict the activities of members of communist organizations and otherwise supported the governments investigation of political activities that were thought to threaten national security.
5.14 / 5.15 US--Soviet Experts Left-Right Ratings: U.S. says nothing
Soviets say 1, one of the two parties of monopolistic capital in the USA. In the second half of the 19th century, the party became one of the ruling parties of financial capital. At this time, differences between the Democratic and Republican parties became obliterated as both became the political organizations of the ruling class of the bourgeoisie.
Goal Orientation Variables, 6.01-6.55
6.00 Open Competition In The Electoral Process: 4, ac9; Open competition at the national level between the Democratic and Republican parties was a regular feature of American politics, and the Democrats subscribed to a strategy of open competition throughout our time period.
6.10 Restricting Party Competition: 0, ac9; Although the Democrats participated in restricting the activities of the Communist party within the U.S., the Communists never posed any threat in elections and this action is not counted in determining the party's strategy.
6.20 Subverting The Political System: 0, ac9; The Democrats were an integral part of the political system and would gain nothing by subverting it.
6.30 Propagandizing Ideas And Program: 6.31--0, ac9. The Democratic party operated no mass communications media of its own.; 6.32--0, ac9. The Democratic party would sponsor occasional workshops but nothing that might be called a party school.; 6.33--1, ac9. Every four years, the Democrats would enact a party platform, but the party rarely did more.; 6.34--1 for first half, ac9, and 2 for second half, ac9. The Democratic party would issue occasional statements from its National Committee, but these did not draw wide attention in national politics, until they were issued in the name of the Democratic Advisory Council from 1957 through 1960.
6.50 Providing For Welfare Of Party Members: 6.51--0, ac9. The old party machine functions of providing food, clothing, or shelter to the needy had largely ceased during our time period.; 6.52--0, ac9. The Democrats did not run employment services themselves, but they helped spread around jobs under their control.; 6.53--2, ac9. Party connections often proved to be most important in obtaining governmental action.; 6.54--0, ac9. The Democrats left education to the state.
6.55--0, ac9. Although the party occasionally functioned in places as a social club, the Democrats did not tend to provide recreational space or field athletic teams.
Autonomy Variables, 7.01-7.05
7.01 Sources Of Funds: 2 (sectors 03, 01), ac6; Heard's data on financing the 1952 Presidential campaign discloses that 48 percent of the expenditures by national level committees of the Democratic party was contributed by individuals who gave sums of $500 or more (p.20, p.47). Most of these large contributors within the Democratic party had backgrounds in the professions rather than business (p.109 ). Expenditures by labor groups were overwhelmingly on behalf of Democratic candidates--so much so that labor expenditures are classified with those of the Democratic National Committees, with labor groups accounding for 15 percent of the total. In House and Senate campaigns, labor's proportions of expenditures is even greater. Alexander finds much the same situation for the 1960 campaign .
7.02 Source Of Members: 6, ac9; There are no formal requirements for membership in the national Democratic party, although some local clubs may require the payment of dues. Most citizens who claim membership in the party do so through self- proclamation.
7.03 Sources Of Leaders: 3 (sector 03), ac9; Considering the Democratic members of the House of Representatives as the referent group of party leaders for comparison with other countries, we find that approximately 60 percent of the Democratic members of the house are lawyers, with the next largest category of about 25 percent being in business. If one considers convention delegates instead, as did McKeough and Bibby in 1964, the proportion of lawyers drops to about 30 percent while business continues to claim about 25 percent (p. 83).
7.04 Relations With Domestic Parties: 7, ac9; The Democratic party operates largely independently of other parties across the nation, but in certain localities the party may join with other parties in backing certain candidates. One prominent example is in New York City, where the Liberal party often endorses Democratic candidates.
7.05 Relations With Foreign Organizations: 5, ac9
The Democrats are not affiliated with any international party organization.
Organizational Complexity Variables, 8.01-8.07
8.01 Structural Articulation: 10, ac9; There are four main components in the Democratic party's national organization--a convention which meets every four years to select the party's Presidential candidate, a National Committee which meets between conventions, a House campaign committee, and a Senate campaign committee. The Democratic convention is very large, growing from approximately 1,200 delegates in 1952 to 1,500 in 1960. During our time period, delegates to the conventions were selected in a variety of ways. Ranney and Kendall report that about 53 percent of the delegates in 1952 were selected by conventions and about 39 percent by direct primary. The remaining 8 percent were chosen by state and territorial party committees (p. 297). Similarly, the methods of choosing National Committeemen differ by states, Sorauf determining that about 40 percent are named in state conventions, 28 percent by delegates to the National Convention, 24 percent by the state central committee, and 8 percent by a primary election (p. 116). The House campaign committee is composed of one representative from each state with Democratic representation in the house. The Senate committee is picked by the Democratic leadership. Although complex, these selection procedures are relatively clearly specified. The functional responsibilities of these committees and their interrelationships are ambiguous at best. It is clear that the main function of the National Convention is to select the Presidential candidate. It also enacts a party platform, but platform statements are commonly neglected. The National Committee rarely operates as a committee and it has no authority over the House and Senate committees, which operate mainly to finance campaigns of members of Congress and are basically independent of each other.
8.02 Intensiveness Of Organization: 5, ac7; Statistics concerning the various sizes and distribution of local party organizations in the United States are not readily available. It appears , however, that the Democratic party is typically organized on the basis of precincts which encompass 1,000 or fewer voters.
8.03 Extensiveness Of Organization: 6, ac5; Information on extensiveness of organization, like that of the intensiveness of organization, is not good. It appears that the Democratic party would have precinct organizations covering virtually the entire country, although these organizations individually would vary greatly in strength.
8.04 Frequency Of Local Meetings: 2, ac4; The variance among local precinct organizations is probably considerable, but they are likely to meet only at campaign times.
8.05 Frequency Of National Meetings: 3, ac6; Cotter and Hennessy report that the Democratic National Committee Rules of 1958 required two meetings a year upon the call of the chairman, unless voted otherwise at a previous meeting (p. 36). Beginning in 1951, an executive committee of 11 members was established, but this group appears not to meet any more often nor to be much used by the national chairman (p. 38).
8.06 Maintaining Records: 9, ac9; Like the publishing program of the Republicans, that of the Democrats varied with the political times and the available funds. As the opposition party during the Eisenhower administration, the party published The Democratic Digest a cutting partisan magazine. Its publishing program was probably less diversified than that of the Republicans, however. Certainly the research function was less important within the Democratic party, where a research division did exist but was neglected. The Democrats did maintain mailing lists of financial contributors, especially through their sustaining membership plan begun in 1956. But these lists were not membership lists per se.
8.07 Pervasiveness Of Organization: 7, ac9
Although the Democrats were ahead of the Republicans in establishing a Women's Division as early as 1916, they have been less successful in organizing women's groups across the country. Cotter and Hennessy point out that Democratic women's clubs are chartered by state committees rather than National Committees (p. 151). The same is true for chartering of the Young Democrats, who became attached to the National Committee with a paid staff only in 1956 (p. 156). Of more importance to the Democratic party is its close association with labor organizations at both the state and national levels. Clearly the party control of labor unions is low--in some states, the unions have the upper hand over the party--but some penetration does exist.
Organizational Power Variables, 9.01-9.08
9.01 Nationalization Of Structure: 3, ac9; The Democratic National Committee, like its Republican counterpart, consists of representatives of state party organizations and would appear to stand at the peak of an organizational hierarchy. But the National Committeemen seldom command their own state organizations, having been chosen mainly for status in the party and frequently for financial support of the party. As a result, membership of the National Committee connotes prestige rather than power. During our time period at least, state party organizations operated virtually autonomously of the National Committee, much less the house and senate campaign committees. Decisions of the National Convention, moreover, were flaunted so readily by state parties, particularly in the south, that Democratic party conventions in 1952 and 1956 sought to enact a loyalty oath which pledged delegates to place the convention's nominee on the ballot in their states as the candidate of the Democratic party, rather than appropriating the party label for their own favorite candidates.
9.02 Selecting The National Leader: 3, ac9; For our purposes, the party leader is taken to be the party's presidential candidate rather than the chairman of the National Committee, who is usually in fact appointed by the presidential candidate. The Democratic party's presidential candidate is named by an elaborate and tumultuous convention process involving thousands of delegates representing state party organizations. Excepting the situation which arises when an incumbent President seeks re-election, there are spirited contests for the party's nomination, and the choice is the subject of much speculation for months in advance. This situation holds true for the Republican party also.
9.03 Selecting Parliamentary Candidates: 1, ac9; The national party organizations have no role to play in the determination of party candidates, who are typically named in direct primary elections usually open to all voters who profess to support the party. Rare attempts at intervention by the President to oppose renomination of Senators or Congressmen of his own party who did not support his programs have failed more often than they have succeeded.
9.04 Allocating Funds: 2, ac9; Enormous sums are required to finance electoral campaigns throughout the United States. Sorauf's compilation of the total estimated expenditures during the presidential campaigns of 1952 through 1960 shows a growth from 140 million dollars to 175 million (p. 311). Even in non-election years, however, the costs may run from 5 to 10 million dollars (bone, p. 393). In part because of the Hatch Act of 1940, which limits income or expenditures of any single interstate committee to 3 million dollars per year, financing has not been centralized within the Democratic party. Several national-level committees, of varying degrees of independence of the Democratic National Committee, exist or are created anew to share in the raising and dispensing of campaign funds. Beginning in 1953, however, state party organizations were assigned quotas to help share the operating costs of the National Committee. State performance in meeting these quotas was very irregular, indicating again the decentralized nature of fund raising within the Democratic party (Cotter and Hennessy, pp. 180-181).
9.05 Formulating Policy: 5 for first half, ac9; 6 for second half, ac6; Policy formulation is not the major function of American national parties. Every four years, the Democratic National Convention does adopt a party platform prior to nominating the party's candidate for the Presidency. The nominee, however, is free to interpret the platform to suit his campaign, selectively emphasizing and neglecting platform policies as he chooses. An incumbent President who seeks renomination, moreover, can guide the platform formulation according to his interests. Nevertheless, party activists work for the adoption of acceptable policies within the platform and may bolt the party if their interests are not served. For example, some southern delegates walked out of the convention in 1948 when the party adopted a strong civil rights policy. Through 1956, only the Democratic National Convention could be identified as the source of party policy as embodied in the party platform. Although the Democratic National Committee may have had in theory the power to make party policy, it had not attempted to do it. But in late 1956, DNC Chairman Paul Butler established a Democratic Advisory Council for this purpose. Although the party's leaders in Congress refused to serve on it, the council did take policy stands in the name of the party. Moreover, Sundquist's analysis of major legislative proposals that became incorporated into the 1960 party platform finds that the council had adopted half of the ten as party measures beforehand (pp. 409-413). But with the Democratic candidate Kennedy winning the Presidency in 1960, the Democratic Advisory Council terminated early in 1961, as party policy became overshadowed by Presidential policy.
9.06 Controlling Communications: 0, ac9; The Democratic National Committee published a magazine called the Democratic Digest, but this cannot be considered to be an important means of communication within the party.
9.07 Administering Discipline: 0, ac9; The Democratic party has virtually no means to discipline those who deviate from party policy. Senators or representatives who buck party policy in voting within the Congress suffer no party reprimand. No Congressman during our time period was expelled from the party or even threatened with expulsion. The disciplinary power of the National Committee itself does not extend beyond seating its own members.
9.08 Leadership Concentration: 1, ac9
The Democrats did not have control of the Presidency for 8 of the 13 years in our time period. As the party out of power, the Democrats certainly had no single spokesman who could authoritatively bind the party, although it had many leaders who might lay claim to the position of party spokesman. Former President Truman, for example, can be included in this category, as can Adlai Stevenson, the twice defeated Democratic nominee for President who is referred to as the Œtitular' head of the party. Sam Rayburn, Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Lyndon Johnson, leader of the Democratic majority in the Senate, are two prominent, but not authoritative, party spokesman during our period. All of these person and others competed with the current incumbent in the position of Democratic National Chairman for leadership of the party.
Coherence Variables, 10.01-10.06
10.01 Legislative Cohesion: .55 for first half, ac6; .63 for second half, ac6; Turner and Schneier report data on the average cohesion of parties in the House of Representatives for selected years from 1921 through 1967 (p. 21). In 1953, the Democrats had an average cohesion of .55 as measured by the Rice Index, and it was .63 in 1959.
10.02 Ideological Factionalism: 5 for first half, ac9; 6 for second half, ac9; For years, the Democratic party has had a large southern conservative wing, which consistently numbered about 100 Congressmen. The number of northern Democratic Congressmen fluctuated more from session to session but usually was somewhat larger than the southern bloc. Because the southern Congressmen tended to come from non- competitive districts, they built up seniority in the Congress and rose to the chairmanship of many key committees. Although these informal ties among the southern Democrats were strong, they did not develop a formal organization. In 1959, northern liberal Democrats in the House organized the Democratic Study Group with offices and staff to counter the smaller but well entrenched southern wing of the party in the house.
10.03 Issue Factionalism: 5, ac9; The Democratic party in Congress has had long-standing divisions over a number of social policies, with the issue of civil rights being perhaps the clearest example. The party's adoption in 1948 of a strong platform plank in opposition to discrimination against Negroes led some southern delegates to leave the convention and join with others in the nomination of another candidate for President on the States' Rights ticket as a rival of the Democratic nominee in the south. Factionalism over civil rights extended throughout our time period.
10.04 Leadership Factionalism: 2, ac9; The process of seeking a party's nomination for the Presidency extends over several months, and prominent candidates in the race do gather behind them ill-defined sets of followers. But leadership followings within the Democratic party did not crystallize to any major extent during our time period.
10.05 Strategic Or Tactical Factionalism: 1, ac9; Discussions of how the Democrats might best operate to win the next election were common and often spirited, but matters of electoral tactics did not serve as the basis of factionalism during our time period.
10.06 Party Purges: 0, ac9
The Democratic party experienced no purges and was not capable of carrying out any purges.
Involvement Variables, 11.01-11.06
11.01 Membership Requirements: 0, ac9; The Democratic party at the national level establishes no requirements for membership in the party. State party organizations per se also have no requirements for party membership. However, in approximately 35 states during our time period, participation in the Democratic primary was closed to all voters who failed to meet some test of party affiliation. Typically, this test in such closed primary states was established by state law rather than party rules and applied to the Republican party as well as the Democratic party. The test was administered in some states by the party, with which the voter had to register in advance of the primary election, and in other states by a challenge system, in which voters who requested a Democratic ballot were open to challenge as to their party affiliation. Depending on the state, challenges could be met by swearing that he had supported the party in the past, or supports it at present, or will support it in the future (Ranney and Kendall, p. 206). These legal requirements of party membership in closed primary states pertained mainly to the eligibility of the voter to participate in the primary election at hand and not to his participation in party activities generally. In the 15 or so open primary states, even these minimum tests were not present, and any voter could request a Democratic ballot and vote for Democratic candidates in the primary.
11.02 Membership Participation: 0, ac9; Most members of the Democratic party are self-styled members and do not participate in meetings or engage in campaign activities.
11.03 Material Incentives: 1, ac5; Research on incentives for party activists in the United States is still in the beginning stages. Researchers in the field have distinguished between incentives that drew the person into party work initially and those which serve to keep him active in the party. Conway and Feigert's study of precinct chairmen in Montgomery County, Maryland, and Knox County, Illinois, find that material incentives drew about 15 pecent of the Democratic charimen into their jobs but served to sustain about 25 percent of the chairmen in their roles (pp. 1166-1168). Gluck's data on committeemen in Buffalo, New York, find that material incentives attracted nearly half of all Democratic committeemen to their jobs but continued as the most important reward for only about one-third.
11.04 Purposive Incentives: 1, ac5; In the same research discussed in variable 11.03, Conway and Feigert found that purposive incentives attracted about 70 percent of the Democratic chairmen initially but that they continued to sustain only about 20 percent in their jobs. Gluck's data show that purposive incentives recruited about 40 percent of the Democratic chairmen and still continued to motivate one-third in their work. In both studies, the importance of social contacts and solidary motivations increased following recruitment.
11.05 Doctrinism: 0, ac9; There is no body of material that can be said to embody Democratic party doctrine.
11.06 Personalism: 0, ac7
A substantial proportion of Democratic party workers in the Presidential campaigns of 1952 and 1956 were volunteers for Stevenson. Wilson's study of these amateur Democrats in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles states that Stevenson was a figure of great emotional significance to the young reformers who often challenged the regular organization while working for Stevenson (p.22 and pp.52-56). Many of these Stevenson Democrats remained loyal into the Democratic convention of 1960, when John Kennedy won the nomination. But it seems that these Stevenson Democrats were issue-oriented liberals who were motivated primarily by purposive incentives and rallied around Stevenson because he embodied their values and objectives.