January 31, 2016


News Clips For The Day


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-announces-stricter-policy-on-gun-sales/

Facebook announces stricter policy on gun sales
AP January 29, 2016

22 PHOTOS -- Death by gun: top 20 states with highest rates
Play VIDEO -- President Obama's "common sense steps" to curb gun violence


SAN FRANCISCO -- Facebook says it's cracking down on online gun sales, announcing Friday a new policy barring private individuals from advertising or selling firearms on the world's largest social network.

The new policy applies also to Facebook's photo-sharing service Instagram. It comes after gun control groups have long complained that Facebook and other online sites are frequently used by unlicensed sellers and buyers not legally eligible to buy firearms.

Facebook "was unfortunately and unwittingly serving as an online platform for dangerous people to get guns," said Shannon Watts of Everytown for Gun Safety, a group that launched a public campaign to convince the social network to change its policies two years ago.

Watts said her group has found numerous cases of felons and minors who were able to buy guns on the site, including two cases in which the buyers used the guns to slay others. Representatives of two gun-owner rights groups, including the National Rifle Association, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Facebook had announced some restrictions on gun sales and advertising in 2014, saying it would block minors from seeing posts that advertised guns. But the social network did not ban private sales at that time.

Licensed firearms retailers can still promote their businesses on Facebook, but they aren't allowed to accept orders or make sales on the site.

A Facebook Inc. spokeswoman said the new policy arose from the company's review of its rules following its recent efforts to encourage new forms of commerce on the site. Facebook expanded its digital payments service last summer, allowing users of its Messenger service to send electronic payments to other individual users.

"Over the last two years, more and more people have been using Facebook to discover products and to buy and sell things to one another," Monika Bickert, who oversees Facebook product policies, said in a statement. "We are continuing to develop, test, and launch new products to make this experience even better for people and are updating our regulated goods policies to reflect this evolution."

Watts, however, said her group had urged Facebook to take stiffer measures, during a series of low-key contacts.

"They were very, very open to our thoughts on policy and to the research we have been compiling," Watts said. "I think they definitely saw this was an issue, but an incredibly complicated issue. I think that's why it's taken two years."

Facebook, which is based in Menlo Park, California, cited the need to balance free expression with public safety when it announced the 2014 policy change in a blog post. At the time, some gun-control advocates complained Facebook didn't go further, while news reports quoted a spokesman for the National Rifle Association who declared victory over what he called a campaign to stifle constitutionally protected speech.

Everytown for Gun Safety was formed by the merger of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a group started by Watts, and another group founded by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

A spokesman for a different group, the Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence, praised Facebook's move in a statement Friday.

"It is simply too easy for virtually anyone to buy any gun they want online without a Brady background check," said the group's president, Dan Gross. "Facebook just took an important step in addressing that challenge and we call on others to follow suit."



“Watts said her group has found numerous cases of felons and minors who were able to buy guns on the site, including two cases in which the buyers used the guns to slay others. Representatives of two gun-owner rights groups, including the National Rifle Association, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. …. "It is simply too easy for virtually anyone to buy any gun they want online without a Brady background check," said the group's president, Dan Gross. "Facebook just took an important step in addressing that challenge and we call on others to follow suit."


I just took a look on Google for connections between Facebook and prostitution. I did find one entry. There are more on child pornography and a child rape video. Meanwhile some compromising photos of kids find their way onto Facebook. Personally, I can’t resist it, but they do need to police their sites better. The selling and buying of guns on the Net, and obviously without a background check, is in the same category. All are technically illegal, or should be, yet it goes on. I won’t even mention enticing young idiots to go to Syria and join ISIS.




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/boko-haram-accused-burning-children-alive-in-homes-near-maiduguri/

Latest Boko Haram massacres mark sad new low for group
CBS/AP
January 31, 2016

11 Photos -- A man walks past burnt out houses following an attack by Boko Haram in Dalori village, 3 miles from Maiduguri, Nigeria, Sunday Jan. 31, 2016. AP PHOTO/JOSSY OLA


ABUJA, Nigeria - A survivor hidden in a tree says he watched Boko Haram extremists firebomb huts and heard the screams of children among people burned to death in the latest attack by Nigeria's homegrown Islamic extremists.

Scores of charred corpses and bodies with bullet wounds littered the streets from Saturday night's attack on Dalori village just 3 miles from Maiduguri, the birthplace of Boko Haram and the biggest city in the northeast, according to survivors and soldiers.

The shooting and burning continued for four hours, survivor Alamin Bakura said, weeping on a telephone call to The Associated Press. He said several of his family members were killed or wounded.

The violence continued as three female suicide bombers blew up among people who managed to flee to neighboring Gamori village, killing many people, according to a soldier at the scene who insisted on anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to journalists.

It was not known how many scores of people were killed because bodies still were being collected, including from the surrounding bushes where the insurgents hunted down fleeing villagers, according to Abba Shehu, a security guard helping collect corpses.

Boko Haram has taken to attacking soft targets, increasingly with suicide bombers, since the military last year drove them out of towns and villages in northeastern Nigeria.

The new focus on more vulnerable targets picked up steam after President Muhammadu Buhari's declaration that Boko Haram has been "technically" defeated, capable of no more than suicide bombings on soft targets.

The 6-year Islamic uprising has killed about 20,000 people and driven 2.5 million from their homes. The Nigerian militants are now the world's deadliest extremist group, edging out the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) to which it is affiliated.



I really don’t see how anyone can justify this type of thing by their religion. It’s purely primitive behavior. The Nigerian leader Buhari needs to keep sending in troops until Boko Haram is decimated, rather than merely “technically defeated.” He also needs to work on the economy, infrastructure, job opportunities, etc. so the people can have a better daily life and won’t be as likely to join a death cult like this.




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-walmart-pharmacist-wins-31-million-suit/

Former Walmart pharmacist wins $31 million suit
AP January 29, 2016


CONCORD, N.H. - A jury has awarded more than $31 million in damages to a former Walmart (WMT) pharmacist in New Hampshire who claimed she was wrongly fired after reporting safety concerns about co-workers dispensing prescriptions.

Maureen McPadden was a 13-year employee who reported her concerns to management while working in Walmart's Seabrook pharmacy. She was fired in 2012 after losing her pharmacy key.

The jury awarded most of the money Thursday based on gender discrimination claims, but also found Walmart's conduct was retaliation for her complaints about safety issues and/or privacy violations.

McPadden, 51, said she was confident she would prevail even before the jury announced its verdicts after about three hours of deliberations.

"I honestly feel the jurors listened intently," she told The Associated Press. "I really feel they wanted to send a message that the little guy has a voice, that Walmart did something wrong."

Randy Hargrove, director of media relations nationally the Bentonville, Arkansas-based company, said Walmart will ask the court to set aside the verdict or reduce the damages.

"We do not tolerate discrimination of any type, and neither that nor any concerns Ms. McPadden raised about her store's pharmacy played a role in her dismissal," Hargrove said.

McPadden testified that she was disciplined twice in the year before her termination because pharmacy technicians did not file required reports on two occasions.

Her lawyers, Richard Fradette and Lauren Irwin, said a male pharmacist at a Walmart in Plaistow, New Hampshire, who lost a pharmacy key within the year after McPadden was terminated, was disciplined, but not fired.

McPadden said her mother and sister at times urged her to give up and move on in the three years leading up to trial, but said she was inspired by her late father to persevere.

"My father always told me that my job was very, very important, and that I had a real duty to keep my patients safe," she said. "The conditions in the pharmacy were not safe. It was really in my soul to do something about it."



“The jury awarded most of the money Thursday based on gender discrimination claims, but also found Walmart's conduct was retaliation for her complaints about safety issues and/or privacy violations. …. Randy Hargrove, director of media relations nationally the Bentonville, Arkansas-based company, said Walmart will ask the court to set aside the verdict or reduce the damages. "We do not tolerate discrimination of any type, and neither that nor any concerns Ms. McPadden raised about her store's pharmacy played a role in her dismissal," Hargrove said. …. "My father always told me that my job was very, very important, and that I had a real duty to keep my patients safe," she said. "The conditions in the pharmacy were not safe. It was really in my soul to do something about it.”


$31 million in damages!! I’m surprised a court upheld this amount no matter what the case. Firing a whistle blower is the kind of thing that businesses used to do all the time, and no court touched them, but in the last twenty years or so the Supreme Court and the general trend of thinking is now going much more toward protecting individuals in cases like this. It’s partly because we “liberals” have had an influence on the American psyche, but it’s also that the general public is seeing more and more of the dishonesty and unfairness which businesses do too often indulge in, generally just to save themselves a few dollars. I’m glad to see Walmart being issued a smack down. They have made so much money that I have no doubt they can raise this fine, while they paid their workers at minimum wage ever since the business started. They aren’t even much cheaper than other stores that do the same kind of thing, either. I have recently found a Roses store near me and I go there rather than Walmart.



PRIMARIES STATE TO STATE

The following NPR article is too long to summarize, so just read it over. The question is brought up by the writer as to why a lily white and rural couple of states, with their Republican skewed bias, get to go first. The fear is that those early victories will taint the public mind for states which are coming later. See also the “.gov” discussion of the matter below this article. It, too, is long, but very interesting.

According to the .gov article, who goes first is not mandated in the Constitution, but rather simply emerged over time, as the old style control by “party bosses” became unpopular and gave way to a jockeying back and forth for position between states. The present situation can be changed at will by whatever state wants to move its’ primary date. There is no rule saying that another state can’t move its’ primary day to the earliest spot. Democrats and Republicans have different methods of dealing with contestant selection issues. The Democrats do it from the National level down and the Republicans by state, which can lead to variances and therefore unfairness from state to state. I would question, however, the extent to which a candidate’s selection can be absolutely assured by a set of early victories, though people being what they are, the do tend to “follow the leader.”

I’ve seen a number of candidates who were “dark horses” at the beginning only to end up as the victor. Senator Sanders was the dark horse a few months ago, and look at him now. He was relatively unknown at that time, but his quotations on issues have established his even temperament, strength and intelligence. His lack of experience on foreign policy has been criticized, but he is mentally quick and will catch up easily. Many say his views are too idealistic to win, but I’m not at all sure of that. I think he is what many Democrats and even Independents have been waiting for since Johnson’s policies on aid to the poor and voting rights for blacks. Johnson was scorned by many for his rough manners in some cases, but his moves swept aside the Jim Crow laws, with the aid of Martin Luther King, of course. We need another “mover and shaker” so the far right will be stopped.



http://www.npr.org/2016/01/29/464250335/the-perfect-state-index-if-iowa-n-h-are-too-white-to-go-first-then-who

The Perfect State Index: If Iowa, N.H. Are Too White To Go First, Then Who?
ASMA KHALID
Updated January 30, 20169:21 AM ET
Published January 29, 201610:54 PM ET

Photograph -- Heather Johnson of South Portland, Maine, exiting a voting booth in November. Portland Press Herald/Press Herald via Getty Images


Every four years when the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary roll around, the critics and cynics question why such unrepresentative patches of America get to vote first in presidential nominating contests. Why is so much political power, they complain, given to states that are more white and more rural than the rest of the country?

So, we attempted to quantitatively evaluate the critique — and try to come up with which states actually were the most representative of the average of the entire country, in what we're calling the Perfect State Index. In creating the PSI, we looked at five categories race, education, age, income and religion. (We explain the methodology, how we arrived there and analyze each category in detail further down.)

Below is an interactive table, which you can sort the results by category. So, which states came out on top?

The Overall Winner: Illinois
Race: Illinois
Education: Delaware
Age: Virginia
Income: Pennsylvania
Religion: (tie) Florida, Indiana, Iowa, North Dakota

Methodology — why we chose these five factors?

It's complicated, and, true, our metrics, are somewhat arbitrary. There are a dozen ways (or more) you could slice and dice Census data to decide which demographic factors are most important. But, we felt that in terms of understanding political behavior — these five indicators were the most important.

We ran the data by Bill Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution, and he insisted that of all the factors we were considering, race was by far the most important indicator of political behavior.

Sign up for NPR's Politics Newsletter
"Race is one where there's a sharp divide between how whites vote and how most minorities vote," Frey said. "The race classification ... is a really good indicator to understand something about how elections are going to turn out."

And, Frey encouraged us to place a higher priority on race, because it often correlates with income, education, and, perhaps even religion.

"By that I mean — in a state like Mississippi, which has a relatively high black population, that may also have some bearing on Mississippi's income rank, and on its education rank," Frey explained. (Mississippi has the lowest median household income in the country, as you can see from our table.)

So, with Frey's guidance, we decided to give a little more power to the "race" category. (All the other categories are not weighted).

For each of our five indicators, we compared every state in the country to either the U.S. median value or the percentage of the national population. That allowed us to see how far each state diverged from the quintessential American "middle."

So, for example, in the map below you'll notice that both California (38.5 percent white) and Maine (93.8 percent white) fared poorly on the race index, but for obviously different reasons. Our index looks at the absolute value — it doesn't matter whether a state is better or worse than the U.S. average; it matters how much a state differs from "mainstream" America.

For each category, every state received a ranking from 1 to 50. We then added the individual rankings together to give each state a final score.

Below, you'll see which state ranked the highest in the five individual categories.

Race

We analyzed 2014 U.S. Census data to compare the racial make-up of each state to the country as a whole. We included all the categories the Census uses: black or African-American; American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian/Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander; Two or More Races; Hispanic or Latino; and White Alone Not Hispanic or Latino.

And, the reason we used the Census subcategories is that it gives us a more accurate racial portrait of each state. If we had only looked at "minorities" compared to "whites," we would have gotten a skewed picture. For example, had we ranked solely based on "minority" population, combining all the racial subgroups, Alaska would have ranked near the top. But it has a disproportionately large Native American population, a group which has a relatively minor voting effect on American politics at a national level.

We wanted to find a state that more closely mirrors the country's racial portrait — and Illinois does that, almost perfectly. If you look at every group: Latinos, Asians, blacks — Illinois' respective populations are nearly identical to the country's at large.

That doesn't surprise Frey from Brookings. He points out that Illinois has mirrored the country's historical mass migrations.

First, white ethnic immigrant groups, such as those from Polish and Italian ancestry moved to the state. Then, during the Great Migration of the early 20th century, African-Americans from the South settled in Chicago. And, then, in the last 30 to 40 years, thousands of Hispanics, particularly Mexicans, moved to the city.

"And, all of that is due to that fact that Chicago has been this kind of central place that has been emblematic of these different kinds of movements," Frey explained. "I don't think there's any other metropolitan area, or any other state really, that has all of these elements. ... Different parts of the country have had pieces of these things. But, Chicago has had them all in different sequences. And, so right now, we have a snapshot of a metropolitan area that's a lot like the U.S. population."

And, as blacks, Latinos and Asians diversified the city, Frey said, old urban white ethnics moved to the suburbs and the rural farmlands. He added that the mix of urban and rural coupled with white suburbanization makes Illinois a good bellwether of what's gone on in the United States as a whole in recent decades.

Education

We looked at the percent of the population that was older than 25 in each state with a bachelor's degree or higher, as tracked by Census data between 2010 and 2014.

Minorities of all educational levels tend to vote Democratic, but, as we've written elsewhere, there seems to be a growing political educational divide within the white population.

In Delaware, 29.4 percent of the total population has graduated with bachelor's degree or higher. (In the U.S. as a whole, 29.3 percent has at least a bachelor's degree). Frey said Delaware's mainstream-level of education may be due to its geography.

"It's an important state, but it is considered to be kind of a suburb of Philadelphia writ large," he said, "and increasingly college graduates have been living and moving to the suburbs, and that's part of what Delaware is as well."

He was, perhaps, more intrigued by the next few highly ranked states. "You also see in this list states you might not have expected to see there — Montana, Nebraska, Oregon," Frey said. "It shows this median level of education is pretty pervasive in all different parts of the country, not just concentrated in a few places."

Age

We used 2014 Census data to compare the median age in each state to the U.S. median age of 37.7.

"It's good to know that Virginia is in the middle," said Frey, but he's skeptical that it means much, because there are a clump of states that roughly reflect the U.S. median age.

What's more important are the states toward the bottom of the list. "What you want to look at — is states that are kind of on the extremes," Frey added. "And, when you're thinking of the extremes, you're thinking of some of the New England states, Pennsylvania, West Virginia – those are states that a lot of the young people have left over the years."

And that brings us to New Hampshire. The early voting state is one of the oldest in the country (tied with Vermont for 47th on the age index). In fact, the aging population has even become a concern for voters in the state. At a recent campaign event, one woman described New Hampshire as going through a "silver tsunami."

For election purposes, Frey says the 65 and older population is key. "Those are the kinds of populations," he noted, "at least in recent elections [that] have tended to veer more toward Republican candidates in presidential elections."

And they vote.

Frey added that a state's median age is often indicative of recent regional migration patterns.

"A lot of immigrants have come to parts of the country and made their populations younger," he said, "a lot of it is in the South and the West."

And, indeed, immigration may help explain why Virginia did so well in the age category when its neighbor West Virginia did so poorly.

Income

There are lots of different economic indicators we could have used to measure the "wealth" of a state: the unemployment rate, the percent of people who own houses, or median household income. With the advice of our economics editor Marilyn Geewax, we opted to go with the 2010 to 2014 median household income (in 2014 dollars).

For the country at large, that is $53,482.

Income is a tough measure, because the cost of living differs wildly from Mississippi to Manhattan. But, it's also an important metric, because the economy is so often the most important issue for voters.

Pennsylvania's income levels are so incredibly average that it differed from the U.S. median by less than a percent. Frey points to Pennsylvania's geography and mix of urban, suburban, rural communities as a possible explanation for economic diversity.

"Pennsylvania ... has the average of those urban areas like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh," Frey said. "And then [in] the inner part of the state, it's a little more rural."

Interestingly, the first nominating state of Iowa also ranked high on the average-income calculator, coming in third. But Frey thinks Iowa fared well for different reasons — partly because it's an overwhelmingly white state and partly because it's in the middle of the country with an average cost of living.

The states that did poorly also tell us something important. New Jersey and Maryland were 49th and 50th, respectively. Both states are wealthier and largely overgrown suburbs of New York and Philadelphia (in New Jersey's case) and Washington, D.C., when it comes to the population center of south-central Maryland.

"It's suburban New York and suburban D.C., and some pretty rich suburbs," Frey said. "Some of the richest suburban counties in the country are in New Jersey and Maryland."

And so, even though New Jersey and Maryland did well on other metrics, such as race or age, they didn't do well in the overall PSI because of income.

Religion

There was a four-way tie for first place in the religion index. And, that's partly because the data isn't as nuanced. Statistics for all the other categories were collected and compiled through the Census Bureau.

But, the Census doesn't ask Americans about religion. Given the central role of religion in campaign politics, and the degree to which religiosity predicts political behavior, we thought it was an important metric to include.

To assess "religiosity," which can often be an amorphous attitude in itself, we used data from the 2014 Religious Landscape Study, a comprehensive survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, which interviewed more than 35,000 Americans from all 50 states. We looked at a one specific aspect of this study: the percent of adults in each state who said religion was "very important" in their lives.

In the U.S. as a whole, and in Iowa in particular, 53 percent of adults said religion was "very important" in their lives. As Iowa prays, so prays the country ... apparently.

Iowa's mainstream status on the religious index might seem surprising given the extent to which the white, Christian conservative vote is courted by GOP presidential candidates there. But, there two things to keep in mind:

The definition of an evangelical is murky, as NPR's Danielle Kurtzleben has previously reported, and the GOP caucus attracts religious activists, so the evangelical community's real numbers are over-inflated in media reports. On the Democratic side, religion is essentially a non-issue. And, in both 2008 and 2012, President Obama won Iowa in the general election.

So while people might think of Iowa as a religious state, it's only actually, as a whole, as religious as the country. In fact, there are many other states that are far more religious. Think: Alabama, where 77 percent of people said religion was "very important" in their lives.

New Hampshire, on the other hand, is far more secular. New Hampshire came in 46th in the category of people saying that religion was "very important" to them. Just 33 percent of adults in New Hampshire said religion was "very important" to them. And, 36 percent described themselves as "religiously unaffiliated," which means they don't identify with any organized religion.

It's one of the least religious states in the country, second only to Sen. Bernie Sanders' home state of Vermont.

Illinois — perfectly average

Illinois borders a traditional East-West divide in the country — the Mississippi River. It snakes across the state's western edge, separating it from Iowa. And it's a microcosm of the country in nearly ever category. Specifically, it ranked in the top 10 for race, age, and religion.

It's almost comical that the most perfectly average state neighbors Iowa, the state that gets to go first in presidential nominating contests.

In many ways, Illinois is geographically and demographically similar to Iowa, particularly in the southern and western regions of the state. The major difference is Chicago — an urban core the kind Iowa just doesn't have.

"It's as diverse as the country, but not overly diverse," Frey said. "It's probably a little more urban than the country as a whole because of the greater Chicago metropolitan area, but a lot of that is the suburbs and the suburbs are representative of much of America."

Plus, he added, Illinois also has a "rural component, which is important."

"[Illinois] ... may not be a swing state," Frey said, "but in terms of its demographics, I think people would do well to look at how the voting goes there to get a better understanding of what's going on in the country as a whole."

And, while people might think of Illinois as a blue state, it currently has a Republican governor and a Republican senator, albeit one who will be in a tough re-election fight in a presidential year.

Also, it's only fairly recently, since 1992, that the state started voting reliably for Democrats in presidential years. From 1968 to 1988, Illinois voted consistently Republican. In fact, Illinois' record is more accurate, than partisan. Throughout the 20th century, Illinois voted for the winner in every presidential election, with the exception of two: Woodrow Wilson in 1916 and Jimmy Carter in 1976.

If anything, Frey, says perhaps Illinois is a racial bellwether. In 2014, the country's under-age-5 population became majority-minority, and so, in years to come, Frey said the racial makeup of the rest of the country is likely going to look more similar to Illinois.

A reality check on Iowa and New Hampshire?

Iowa, the state that goes first in our current political system, according to the PSI, came in 16th place overall.

That's not too bad, considering it could have been worse. New Hampshire, for example, was 49th, nearly dead last.

To be fair, Iowa is representative of the country on most of our metrics, with the exception of race.

A number of states East Coasters derisively refer to as "flyover states" — Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa and Missouri — actually all fared quite well on the PSI, especially if race was excluded.

So, in some ways, it seems the heartland is a fairly accurate portrait of average America, if it was more racially diverse. But, race is such an important factor that Frey thinks it outweighs Iowa's advantages. In the race category, Iowa was in the bottom 10, finishing 40th, with just a 3.4 percent black population and a 5.6 percent Hispanic population.

New Hampshire, though, is even more of an outlier. The only state that fared worse overall was West Virginia.

By every measure, New Hampshire is horribly unrepresentative of the country — people make too much money, they're graying, over-educated, overwhelmingly white and not nearly religious enough.

The question, of course, is whether these two states should continue to serve as litmus tests for candidates.

"It's for the parties to decide," Frey said, "but I have to say as a demographer, the more stock you put into these two states, as we become more diverse as a country, the more we'll be out of touch with what the rest of the country's going to be voting like."



http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/elections/elecprocess2.html

Primary Votes Then
Theodore Roosevelt

Theodore Roosevelt, full length portrait, facing front, speaking at Carnegie Hall
I can picture ... the great Democratic convention of 1894 at the old coliseum in Omaha... right now I can hear the Hallelluiahs of the assembled. Oh how I wish I had back the youth and the enthusiasm I felt that night, I jumped on a chair and ask[ed] that by a rising vote the nomination be made unanimous, how the people yelled, how the packed gallories applauded, it cheers an old man now to think about it.

Mrs. [sic] J.J.McCarthy's enthusiasm for party conventions wasn't shared by all of his contemporaries. Even before 1900, many sought to reform these conventions that uniformly ignored the will of individual voters in their selection of presidential candidates. Though these conventions were attended by delegates sent from their respective states, delegates were often chosen by state and party bosses with sway over the delegates' loyalties, instead of by state-wide or majority elections, called primaries. Before the 1920s, party bosses were often accused of trading convention floor votes for power, patronage, or even cash! These problems kept the representational method of nominating candidates by sending delegates to conventions from being truly representational.

In the first decade of the 1900s, states began to hold primary elections to select the delegates that would attend national nominating conventions. The introduction of these primary elections mitigated the corrupt control of party and state bosses. But the widespread adoption of primary elections was not immediate and so they did not play the role of virtually determining a party's candidate as they do today. 1912 was the first year in which a presidential candidate, two-time President Theodore Roosevelt, tried to secure his nomination through primary elections. That year, nine states elected delegates that supported Roosevelt, while incumbent, William Howard Taft, won only one primary election. Despite Roosevelt's wholesale victory of the popular vote, Taft received the Republican nomination. This was because only 42% of the delegates who attended the nominating convention had been selected through primary elections. The rest had been selected by party bosses who supported Taft and succeeded in granting him their party's nomination.

Failing to win the Republican nomination, Roosevelt and his supporters formed the Progressive Party, or Bull Moose Party, with Roosevelt as its presidential candidate. Roosevelt failed to win the Presidency that year, but with the help of the Progressive party, our country's primary system began to change. Fed up with corrupt party politics, Americans demanded and won reforms that reduced the power of party bosses. The introduction of the secret ballot had led the way in 1888. By the 1920's, almost every state had loosened the grip of political bosses and placed candidate selection more firmly in the hands of citizen voters.

The excitement and corruption of party politics was not limited to the national arenas and big party players. E. R. Kaiser paints a picture of local party politics in the late 1800s:

Politics played a big part in the life of this town years ago. Campaigns were hot, and there was always a big celebration afterwards. ... Votes used to be bought -- that is before the secret ballot was adopted. Some sold 'em pretty cheap. I remember one old fellow who sold out to one party for a dollar -- then sold out to the other for the same price.

Because the Constitution gives no guidance for nominating presidential candidates, Americans continue to tinker with the primary process. Reforms led to party rules for choosing candidates and delegates. The Democratic party has established national rules for how candidates are selected. The Republican party allows each state to set its own guidelines for candidate selection. Other parties, such as the Reform party, have a less structured candidate selection process.

The advent of early primaries in New Hampshire, early caucuses in Iowa, and the Super-Tuesday block of state primaries is relatively new to the election scene. As primaries were universally adopted as the method for selecting delegates, they became a more consequential part of the election process. Early primaries have taken on added importance as setting precedence and influencing the elections that follow in other states. Today, state legislatures capitalize on the importance of primaries and jockey for influence by scheduling their states' primaries and caucuses as early as possible, forcing presidential candidates to cater to their states.

Unlike the heated back-room nominations of the past, there are few surprises at today's national party conventions. Today, in 48 states, individuals participate in primaries or caucuses to elect delegates who support their presidential candidate of choice. At national party conventions, the presidential contender with the most state delegate votes wins the party nomination. Our far-reaching American news media ensures that state delegate vote counts (and the apparent nominees) are well known before national conventions begin. As a result, modern national conventions don't select candidates. Instead, they launch nominees and election themes that carry through the race to the White House.

Bridge to the Future

'I want to build a bridge!' said one. October 21, 1996. From Oliphant's Anthem: Pat Oliphant at the Library of Congress Exhibit

President Clinton's speech at the Democratic National Committee convention on August 29, 1996 was entitled "Join Me to Build that Bridge to the Future," a theme that was played constantly for the next few months.

The perceived need for reform of the primary process continues today. Many feel that the influence of early primaries disturbs the balance of power exerted by the states upon the nomination of candidates, and thus the selection of the President. Proponents of campaign finance reform feel that the large sums of money required to run a political race deter many from seeking office. Indeed, the increased importance of primary elections and the increased media coverage of the race for the Presidency have added to the challenges facing a candidate. Prospective presidential candidates generally pay registration fees, collect a set number of voter signatures, and affiliate with a political party to qualify for state ballots or caucuses. That deceptively simple process is followed by the more onerous job of amassing a war-chest of campaign funds, then winning the hearts of voters in grueling and costly state races and in the general election.

Americans will continue to grapple with the primary and the electoral system. The beauty of our democracy is that citizens have the power to change the election process in the years to come.