Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Division
Browse By Session or Event Type
Search Tips
Virtual Exhibit Hall
Personal Schedule
Sign In
X (Twitter)
This paper studies the conditions under which political parties adopt primaries in contexts in which campaigning is based on clientelistic rather than programmatic appeals. I develop a model of electoral competition in which two office-motivated parties compete over a pool of potential candidates to office. On the one hand, political parties choose nomination rules in order to attract higher-quality aspirants. On the other hand, ambitious office-seekers join the political party that maximizes their chances of getting elected to office. The main result of this paper shows that there is a positive relationship between a party's electoral strength and the use of primaries. The political party that is relatively stronger adopts primaries in order to increase the number of high-quality aspirants that join the party and, thus, to increase the probability that the party's general-election candidate will face an opponent of lower quality. The electorally-weaker party, in contrast, has incentives to appoint its candidate, since this makes it a more attractive option for at least one higher-quality aspirant who would prefer to avoid a crowded field in the stronger party. I provide support for this expectation using an original dataset on legislative candidate selection in Mexico in four federal legislative elections (2003-2012).