presidency. Ordinarily, the parties must choose among four, five, or
more possible nominees. That is vastly more difficult than deciding
between two possibilities; mathematically, there is no invariably sat-
isfactory way to arrive at a group choice between more than two
alternatives in a reasonably democratic way. ⁴

Since both parties select their nominee on the basis of absolute
majority rule, a combination of first, second, and even third choices
may be necessary before a winner can emerge. Assessments of the
various competitors' likelihood of winning the nomination therefore
must be combined with their relative attractiveness as candidates and
potential presidents in order to make a reasonable choice between
them. It makes no sense to most delegates to back a first-choice can-
didate who has less chance of nomination than their second choice;
to do so might contribute to the selection of a quite unacceptable
person. Anticipated outcomes thus play a large role in nominating
decisions, though they are irrelevant to decisions made in the normal
American two-main, plurality election.

Some of the handy aids to reasonable decision that exist in the gen-
eral election are missing from the nominating contests. Party identifi-
cation, a short-cut way of deciding where to cast an election vote, is
the same for all the contestants. Some nominees have been in the
public eye for decades, others are not well known when the nominat-
ing contest begins. Thus presidential nominating politics is extraordi-
narily subtle, ambiguous, and complex.

Facts about presidential nominations exist in abundance. News-
papers and magazines print millions of words about them. Television
and radio provide extensive public exposure to candidates and near-
candidates, cover preconvention campaigns thoroughly, and broad-

-3-