ABSTRACT
This chapter examines the history of the national primary as the solution for eliminating the taproot of voter inequality in the nominating process. By reviewing the history and content of federal nominating reform proposals, the author dispels the myth that the national primary solution has been fully vetted and rejected as unworkable, concluding that legislative proposals for a national primary that is uniform in its timing and participation requirements are far fewer than is popularly believed. Proposals for some system of regional rotating primaries, on the other hand, retain the very feature that is most detrimental to party members’ rights: a sequential nominating process. Even as the nominating system has evolved in the direction of a de facto national primary, there is powerful, institutionalized resistance to any comprehensive revision of the system. Arguments for and against a national primary and the obstacles to its adoption are reviewed. The author argues that while the logic behind the national primary has remained the same, the realities of the modern nominating system make that logic more compelling than ever.
