ABSTRACT
The conclusion of the 2000 cycle of presidential primaries, which produced George W. Bush and Albert Gore as the major parties’ nominees, also brought with it a flurry of complaints about the process. Big money dominated the proceedings. Establishment candidates enjoyed unfair advantages over underdog insurgents. Party elites had more influence in their choice than rank-and-file members. The nominees were selected before many voters even had a chance to express their preferences. These complaints are all the more striking for their familiarity. Many of the same complaints made in the year 2000 would have rung true to interested observers over the past two centuries. In fact, from the beginning reformers of the nomination process have advocated their views with pro-democratic and anti-elitist rhetoric.
