If this bill has as much success this year as it has in the past, New Hampshire will continue to do its thing for a long time in the future.

I yield the balance of my time.

Mr. GREGG. Thank you.

Mr. SWIFT. Thank you, Mr. Gregg. You have done a good job defending your State.

Mr. GREGG. Thank you.

Mr. SWIFT. We appreciate your testimony.

Our next witness is Dr. Stephen J. Wayne, who is professor at George Washington University in the Department of Political Sci

ence.

Dr. Wayne, welcome to the committee. Any prepared statement that you have will be made a part of the record. You may proceed in any fashion you choose.

TESTIMONY OF DR. STEPHEN J. WAYNE, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

Dr. WAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly appreciate the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee. I would like to try to put the discussion in a somewhat larger context than I have presently heard this morning. It seems to me that the rules for setting up the procedures for nominating delegates have a great deal of influence on the type of nominee that is selected. You really have to ask yourself what kind of nominee do you want before you start monkeying around with the rules. What qualifications are most desirable? Do you want a candidate with national experience who's sophisticated in the ways of Washington, or a party leader who can command the support of a fair number of people with a similar political persuasion, or the people's choice defined in terms of the intensity of one's supporters or defined in terms of the number of popular votes in any given State?

I would like to argue that these qualifications are not mutually exclusive or inclusive. If parties or the American people desire a candidate with national experience, what needs to be done is to tighten the time frame, concentrate the elections, require a high threshold, facilitate participation by independents, and not be concerned with costs. If what you want is an experienced party leader, then give the States flexibility in determining their mode of election, including the date of their contest, their rules for filing, the apportionment of delegates, and how that delegation behaves at the convention.

If you want to try to get a candidate who will represent the views of a majority within his or her party, then what we need to do is conduct a national primary with a runoff provision if the plurality winner doesn't get 40 percent of the vote.

If what you want is a popular choice based on sectional differences, then perhaps the systems of regional primaries that have been proposed would suffice, so long as we had a unified system of proportional voting within the States, probably aggregated by Congressional districts with a minimum threshold.

If what you want is a popular choice sensitized to the different coalitions within the country, then we need to impose a window but allow flexibility to operate within it.

It seems to me that, whatever rule or whatever law this committee may try to pass, at least the ones that I have examined, will not probably affect the amount of money that is spent, will probably not affect the amount of time candidates spend campaigning, and probably won't affect the nature or the impact of the media coverage. Nor do I believe that any of these are major problems. In 1984 eleven Democratic candidates spent almost $70 million in their quest for the Democratic nomination. Seventeen million people participated in the primaries and several other million in the caucuses. It comes out to about $4 a vote. We pay more for going to a first-run movie, as much for a fast-food lunch.

The costs of American elections on a per-capita basis are far less than those of most other democratic societies. We can afford more expensive elections, but I don't think we can afford less expensive

ones.

The fact that our campaigns are long and are arduous is not a product of a particular rule. It would not be affected if we set up a regional primary system. It is the entire system that has developed, beginning probably in the mid-1950's, that forces prospective nominees to demonstrate their partisan support and their general election potential by making popular appeals. If we had party leaders choose the nominees as we did in times past, the process wouldn't be as long. It wouldn't be as public. It wouldn't be as expensive. But the nominees would not nearly be as sensitized to the public moods, opinions, or attitudes of the voters as they are today.

If you tighten the primary or caucus period, you are probably going to increase the length and the costs of the campaign. Instead of making frequent trips to Representative Gregg's State, New Hampshire, and to Iowa and to every other straw vote that seems likely to be covered by national or local media, the candidates are going to have to go to all the States that are holding primaries or caucuses at that particular time. Moreover, the key, it seems to me, is not when the primary or caucuses are held but when the filing date is.

Put yourself in a position that Gary Hart put himself in in 1984. By, the time the Florida filing date was established, he didn't have his campaign set up. So, he had no delegates to file. So, New Hampshire did him no good in Florida as far as delegates were concerned.

It seems to me that you have to field candidates in all of those States. You have to mount major media efforts. That would be a major difference.

One of the advantages of our system now is that some States permit door-to-door and grassroots campaigning while others facilitate media campaigns. The balance is probably good. If you had a regional primary you would have to run media campaigns in all the States.

I also think that the large States would receive disproportionate influence and resources if you held regional primaries. The reason is that the bias of the electoral college, which favors the large

States, would be extended into the nomination process. I am not sure that you want to do that.

Nor do I think that the media would be content to wait for the first real votes before they start giving attention to the contest. The media focus right now is on the horses and the early line as illustrated by all these idiotic straw polls that we are going to read about over the next couple of years. Can you imagine the time the media would have in reporting the results, interpreting them for 6 to 10 States holding primaries on the same day? If you can't, just review the reporting and interpretation of the results on "Super Tuesday" in 1984.

I don't believe that legislation to establish regional primaries or limit the period would cut costs, would cut campaigning, would reduce coverage. It would have some other consequences, however, some good, some bad.

On the negative side, I think regional primaries would exacerbate sectional differences and sectional rivalries; it would encourage sectional candidates, if their section came first, to make a name for themselves; and it would produce many more candidate organizations to rival the party organizations, further weakening the party structure, which I don't think we want to do.

Based on a point that Representative Thomas made earlier, it seems to me that, if you have these regional primaries and you have proportional voting, the emergence of the consensus candidate within the party might be impeded. That would perhaps give the convention more of a decisionmaking and less of a decision ratification role. Maybe that's good, maybe it's not. But it certainly wouldn't decrease the cost, the time, and the media coverage of the contest. In fact, it would do just the opposite.

On the plus side, I think regional primaries would concentrate the campaign, might encourage turnout by a regional media blitz, and thirdly, would more closely reflect the popularity of candidates within their regions.

Would the eventual nominee be more representative of the party rank and file? Would the eventual nominee be a more popular choice? Would he or she be a more effective party leader, a more qualified Presidential candidate? I don't know. But one thing is certain, and we can see this with the finance law: every time Congress changes the law, something unanticipated results.

That brings me to my final point and to the question that you referred to earlier about the constitutionality of these laws. I am not going to comment on the latter because I am an attorney. But does Congress really want to get into the business of choosing the party nominees? It's one thing to expand suffrage and to do so by constitutional amendments. It's another to regulate the financial aspects of campaigning in the primaries by legislation and produce laws which I think most people would regard as a very mixed blessing. But for Congress to determine when elections for party nominees can be held and to establish rules that in the case of one law that I read requires independents to participate, strikes me both as unnecessary and going too far.

My own opinion is that the parties should be encouraged to devise their own rules for the selection of their nominees. I think Members of Congress should play a very active role in this. They

should help shape the process but within the party and not outside of it. The knowledge, the experience, the influence that Members of Congress have should be directed toward the selection of well-qualified nominees who lead as well as follow, who will be able to articulate party goals and at the same time translate them into public policy, and who can build support both within the Washington community and outside of it.

I think we have a problem with efficient government today in the United States. If party and President cannot unite what the Constitution and what the pluralism of our political system separates, then effective government cannot be achieved and sustained, at least not for long.

Statement of DR. STEPHEN J. WAYNE, PROFESSOR of Political Science, George WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

Mr. Chairman: I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee. The issue that the subcommittee is considering, the selection of presidential nominees by the major parties, is critical to the vitality of our democratic system and to the efficient operation of our form of government. Unless the nominees are well qualified, unless they can generate loyalty within their party, unless they can build and maintain broad coalitions of public support, they will be unable to win, and if successful, to govern.

The problem in the last decade and a half is that the nomination process has emphasized public participation and representative selection at the expense of party leadership and Washington experience. Successful nominees (until 1984) have tended to be those who appeal to the rank and file on the basis of their new messages, their new agendas, and their new and distinctive styles of leadership. Being associated with the "old crowd" has clearly been considered a liability.

My point is that objectives of the nomination process have changed. Before you alter the rules you have to reconsider these objectives. To do otherwise is to put the cart before the horse.

Ask yourselves, what qualifications are most desirable for a nominee to possess? Do you want a candidate with national experience sophisticated in the ways of Washington? Do you want a party leader who can command the support of those with a similar partisan persuasion? Or do you want the people's choice defined in terms of the intensity of his or her supporters or the votes of the populace as a whole?

These qualifications are not mutually inclusive or exclusive. For a candidate with natural experience, you need to tighten the time frame, concentrate the elections, require a high threshold, facilitate participation by independents, and not concern yourself with costs. For a party leader, you should allow states flexibility in determing their mode of selection, including the date of their contest, their rules for filing, the apportionment of delegates, and the conduct of the delegation at the convention. For a majoritarian selection, conduct a national primary with a run-off provision if the plurality winner doesn't receive at least 40 percent of the vote. For a popular choice based on sectional differences, have regional primaries with a unified system of proportional voting, aggregated by congressional districts with a medium threshold (about 15 to 20 percent). For a popular choice sensitized to national coalitional interests, impose a window that allows the present system to operate freely within it.

Don't deceive yourselves. Changes to the rules will probably not affect the amount of money spent, the time candidates campaign, or even the nature and impact of media coverage. Not do I believe that these are major problems. In 1984 eleven Democrats spent almost $70 million on the 17 million people who voted in the primaries plus all those who participated in the caucuses. That's probably less than $4 a vote. We spend more money going to a first-run movie and as much for a fast food lunch (neither of which sustains the interest nor contains the nourishment that elections do for a democratic society). In fact, the costs of American elections on a per capita basis are far less than those of most other democratic countries. We can afford more expensive elections; we can't afford cheaper ones.

That presidential campaigns are long and arduous is not primarily a product of a this or that rule; it is a consequence of a system that forces prospective nominees to make popular appeals to demonstrate their partisan support and electoral potential.

Were party leaders to choose the nominees as in times past, the nomination process would not be as long, as public, or as expensive but neither would the nominees be as attuned to public moods, opinions, and attitudes.

Tightening the primary/caucus period might actually increase the length and costs of campaigns. Instead of frequent trips to Iowa, New Hampshire, and every straw vote covered by the media, candidates would have to go to most if not all the states holding their election on that first Tuesday. They would have to field organizations in those states and, of course, mount media efforts in most. Naturally, the large states would receive disproportionate attention and resources, extending the bias of the Electoral College to the nomination process.

Nor do I think that the media would be content to wait for the first real votes before covering the contest. Their focus would continue to be on the horses and the early odds as illustrated by those idiotic strawpolls. And can you imagine the ways in which the results of 6 to 10 state contest held on the same day would be reported and interpreted? If you can't, review the reporting of Super Tuesday, 1984.

In short, I do not believe that legislation to establish regional primaries or even limit the period in which primaries and caucuses could be held would cut costs, campaigning, or coverage. I do think, however, it would have other consequences, some bad, some good.

Regional primaries might exacerbate sectional rivalaries, encourage sectional candidates, and produce more organizations to rival those of the state and national parties. Moreover, they might impede the emergence of a consensus candidates, thereby extending the process through the convention and increasing not decreasing costs, time, and media attention.

On the plus side, regional primaries could facilitate a more concentrated campaign than the present system. Turnout might be encouraged by the regional media blitz. The allocation of delegates would probably reflect the popularity of the candidates within the area.

Would the eventual nominee be more representative of the rank and file, a more popular choice, a more effective party leader, a more qualified presidential candidate? I don't know. One thing is certain, however. Every time the law is changed, unanticipated consequences result.

Which brings me to my final point-Does the Congress really want to get into the business of choosing party nominees? It is one thing to expand suffrage and to do so by constitutional amendment; it is another to regulate the financial aspects of the campaign by legislation, laws that most concede have produced very mixed blessings. But for Congress to determine when elections for party nominees can be held and establish rules that permit independents to participate in them strikes me as unnecessary and going too far.

Let the parties devise their own rules for the selection of their nominees. Members of Congress should help shape the process within the parties not outside of them. The knowledge, expertise, and political influence of Members of Congress should be directed toward the selection of well qualified nominees who will lead as well as follow, who will help articulate party goals and translate them into public policy, and who will build support within the Washington community as well as outside of it.

It is my belief that if party and president cannot unite what the Constitution and the polity divide, then effective government cannot be achieved and sustained for long.

Mr. SWIFT. Dr. Wayne, thank you very much.

Gentlemen, we have a problem. Dr. Wayne had told us earlier that he has to leave by 11:30. We have a vote. If we rush over and back, it's still going to consume 10 minutes or more. We have 9 minutes left before we have got to go vote. Do you want to try to work in a few questions now and then let Dr. Wayne go? OK. I recognize the gentleman from California.

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you.

Dr. Wayne, I like your testimony, so I won't have many questions about it. However, I would appreciate opening up a dialog because you have not given us the kind of narrow criticisms that I think I would like to hear from you, both pro and con. In terms of some of the options, I agree with you that some of the legislation goes far beyond what we ought to even be considering in terms of