Activities of Precinct Committeemen in Partisan and Nonpartisan Communities

• Published date: 01 March 1964
• DOI: 10.1177/106591296401700109
• Date: 01 March 1964
• Author: Phillips Cutright
• Subject Matter: Articles

ACTIVITIES OF PRECINCT COMMITTEEMEN IN
PARTISAN AND NONPARTISAN COMMUNITIES
PHILLIPS CUTRIGHT
Social Security Administration
HE
RELATIONSHIP and possible consequences of nonpartisan or partisan
election rules to political party activity and organization is the subject of this
JL paper. Precinct committeemen in two different political systems were studied.
In one system the precinct committeemen work within a set of rules that maintain
partisan elections of local officials and a large volume of local patronage. In the
second community the precinct committeemen work under a city-manager plan,
nonpartisan election rules,’ and no local patronage. A direct examination of the dif-
ferences between the activities of precinct workers in different political systems may
contribute to a fuller understanding of the effect of imposing nonpartisan electoral
rules on urban political organizations.
Two of the formal and intended consequences of nonpartisanship are the elimi-
nation of the task of electing local public officials and the removal of patronage and
other rewards from the control of the local political parties. Previous discussion of
the possible effects of these two changes on local party systems has focused more on
the effects on voting behavior and pressure group activity than on the direct effects
on the precinct workers and organization of the parties themselves.2 ( Party officials
in Nonpartisan County were shocked at the suggestion that they possibly supported
nonpartisan officials. )
Despite the caution with which social scientists have discussed their research
findings they generally conclude that the effect of nonpartisanship on local political
party organization is one of weakening the local party organization and decreasing
the party activity of the precinct workers. Underlying this assumption is the notion
NOTE: Research in Partisan City was supported by a grant from the Committee on Political
Behavior of the Social Science Research Council and was directed by Peter H. Rossi.
Support for the study in Nonpartisan County was given by the Department of Sociology,
Washington State University. My thanks also go to Robert A. Dentler who contributed
substantially to an early draft of this report. Names of the communities are available to
scholars who need additional information about these communities to further comparative
research. The views expressed in this paper are personal and do not reflect opinions of the
Social Security Administration.
1
Nonpartisan elections refer specifically to councilman offices only, but in cities with nonparti-
san elections for the city council the office of the mayor and other city offices are usually
nonpartisan as well. A historical account of the introduction and spread of nonpartisan
elections in American cities is given in Eugene C. Lee, The Politics of Nonpartisanship:
A Study of California City Elections (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California
Press, 1960).
2
Research on some consequences of the nonpartisan system of election rules is reported by
Charles R. Adrian, "Some General Characteristics of Nonpartisan Elections," American
Political Science Review, 46 (September 1952), 766-76. See also Lee, op. cit.; Oliver P.
William and Charles R. Adrian, "The Insulation of Local Politics under the Nonpartisan
Ballot," American Political Science Review, 53 (December 1959), 1052-63; and J. Leiper
Freeman, "Local Party Systems: Theoretical Considerations and a Case Analysis," Ameri-
can Journal of Sociology, 64 (November 1958), 282-89. None of these studies directly
measures party activity in partisan and nonpartisan communities but deals primarily with
other consequences of nonpartisanship and infers that party organization must weaken
under nonpartisan conditions.
93

---

94
that the majority of precinct workers are active because they are stimulated to work
by the rewards that the party has to pass along to the faithful worker. In the absence
of these rewards two processes may occur: (1) a potentially active worker will be
recruited to party work but will be inactive; or (2) the potentially active worker will
not be recruited and an inactive worker will fill the post. In either case the result is
the same: inactive party workers.
These assumptions of the nature of the effects of nonpartisan elections on local
party workers is compelling because it fits so well with the layman’s &dquo;model&dquo; of
political behavior (i.e., greedy and selfish) and, perhaps, the more positive image of
the &dquo;economic man.&dquo; We
will test these assumptions by directly measuring the activi-
ties and the party organization of precinct committeemen in two American com-
munities, one with five decades of nonpartisan government and a second city that
has never known the nonpartisan system.3 In a concluding section we will discuss
the implications of this study for the practical problem of revitalizing local political
parties at the precinct level.
DATA COLLECTION AND A COMPARISON OF THE TWO
COMMUNITIES
Data on the activities of precinct workers and the organization of the parties in
&dquo;Partisan City&dquo; were collected during the summer of 1957 and data from &dquo;Nonparti-
san County&dquo; were collected during the late spring of 1961. In both cases clearance
was first obtained from top party leaders and the precinct workers were then asked
for their cooperation. Personal interviews were obtained in Partisan City and a mail
questionnaire was used in Nonpartisan County.
In Partisan City an attempt was made to interview the committeeman and his
vice-committeeman in each of the 112 city precincts. Successful contacts were made
with 158 Democrats and 148 Republicans. Approximately 80 per cent of the pre-
cincts are represented by our interview data. In Nonpartisan County 86 per cent of
the 285 questionnaires sent to committeemen were returned. A systematic 50 per cent
sample of all precincts was taken. Sources of nonresponse bias in both communities
remain unknown, but we will assume that if nonrespondents differ significantly from
respondents the bias is in the same direction in both communities and will not impair
our comparisons.
Table I summarizes some of the relevant data concerning similarities and dif-
ferences between the two areas. They are similar in regard to population, median
family income, homeownership, and proportion of the population living and work-
ing in rural areas. With regard to differences we may note that Partisan City is a
manufacturing community: it is high in its proportion of Roman Catholics, and high
in nonwhite population. It is a solid Democratic area. In contrast, Nonpartisan
County is not stable politically. For example, in 1958 it had a turnout of about
80,000 voters for eight partisan county offices. The Democratic percentage of this
vote for each of the eight county offices was 66, 66, 70, 70, 74, 43, 44, and 36 respec-
3
A study design that could measure party organization and activity before the introduction of
nonpartisanship and then observe the effects of the change would be desirable, but in the
absence of such an ideal situation we selected the two communities to be described below
for comparison.

---

95
tively. The voters split their tickets in much this same way year after year. This is
not at all the case in Partisan City or its surrounding county where straight-ticket
voting prevails.
TABLE I
PARTISAN AND NONPARTISAN AREAS COMPARED
(in percentages)
SOURCES: U.S. Department of Commerce, County and City Data Book, 1956 (Wash-
ington, D.C., 1957). Bureau of Research and Survey of the National Council of Churches,
Churches and Church Membership in the United States: An Enumeration and Analysis by
Counties, States and Regions (New York, 1956-58). Religious affiliation is the proportion
Roman Catholic of all reporting church members. Richard M. Scammon, America Votes (Pitts-
burgh : University of Pittsburgh Press, 1960), Vol. III. The vote reported is for the county and
state in each case. Partisan City votes about 3 to 5 per cent more Democratic than the county
in which it is located.
Data has been rounded for ease of presentation and to prevent identification of the com-
munities.
It is important to note that neither party organization exists in a totally non-
partisan environment, only that the party worker in Partisan City has partisan muni-
cipal elections, while these are absent in Nonpartisan County.4 Both party organiza-
tions struggle for partisan county and state offices. It is also important that neither
community is in a totally one-party, noncompetitive political environment. Demo-
crats have held high state offices in both states in which our areas are located, com-
peting actively with Republicans for the past several decades.
4
Twelve per cent of the Nonpartisan County committeemen lived in rural precincts. A com-
parison of this group with the remaining 88 per cent of the cases revealed no significant
differences, and they were included in the study.

---

96
ORGANIZATION OF THE PARTIES AND THE VOLUME OF PATRONAGE
A detailed description of the organization of the parties in Partisan City has
been reported elsewhere.5 Partisan City has a party organization (city chairman and
Central Committee) with a life of its own. The county chairman and his Central
Committee are separate individuals with their own distinct responsibilities.
In Nonpartisan County, 74 per cent of the county residents live in the central
city and most of the remainder inhabit nonpartisan towns on its fringes....