Abstract: The rich historiography of antebellum politics which has appeared in recent decades has directed attention to the role of Martin Van Buren, the first professional politician elected to the Presidency, in the emergence of the modern two-party system. But Van Buren has, until now, remained largely neglected by biographers, perhaps because of his enigmatic character as one who, as John Randolph put it, "rowed to his objects with muffled oars", or possibly because of a deep-seated cultural mistrust of political parties and professional politicians. In his meticulously researched and exhaustively detailed study John Niven has redressed this omission and provided an excellent narrative of the career of a key political figure. Niven traces Van Buren's developing political career from its beginnings in the rough and tumble factional politics of New York in the early nineteenth century through his move into the national political arena in the 1 820s, his crucial role in the creation of the coalition which swept Jackson into power in 1828, his moderating role in Jackson's administration, his own accession to the Presidency and his defeat in 1840, his loss of the Democrats' nomination in 1844, his unsuccessful candidature for the Free Soil Party in 1 848, and his return to the Democrat fold in the 1 850s following his retirement from active politics. Through it all Niven weaves a balanced, sympathetic portrait of a thoroughly political individual, who, as the "ablest political strategist of his generation" (p.488), mastered the electoral process as none had before him. In chronicling Van Buren's career, Niven emphasises his achievements as the prime creator of the modern two-party system, as the principal agent in bringing Jackson to the Presidency and the moderating voice of balance and realism in Jackson's administration, as a President who restructured the American banking system, and as a highly successful diplomat. Rejecting the image of Van Buren as a political spoilsman devoid of principles, Niven convincingly portrays him as judicious and reflective, a careful manager rather than an intriguer, a realistic politician, sensitive to the risks of factionalism and sectionalism in the still fragile republic, who displayed statesmanship during his Presidency and after. He was deeply and consistently committed to JeffersonianRepublican ideas about society and politics, to the perpetuation of the Union, and to the idea of party organisation as the basis for a stable democracy. The strength of his commitment to principles was evident in his advocacy of an Independent Treasury and in his virtual political suicide through his opposition to the annexation of Texas. But despite its exhaustive detail, Niven's study is flawed. It is uneven in its coverage, with little attention given to its subject's youth and personal life, and only three out of thirty-two chaptes devoted to his Presidency. Inadequate attention is given to analysis of his relationship with Jackson, the 1837 Crash which destroyed his reelection hopes, and the complex background and consequences of his introduction of the Independent Treasury. These shortcomings are symptomatic of the study as a whole, for this is a traditional political biography, drawing on traditional sources, and largely eschewing analysis in favour of description. It is narrowly focused upon political leaders, factions and events. Little effort is made to explore the broader social and political context of Van Buren's ideas and actions, despite the many recent studies

Abstract: tutional and statutory law. This study assumes that the impact of interest groups on the selection of Supreme Court Justices can be divided into two stages: the Presi? dent's selection of a nominee and the Senate's acceptance or rejection of the nominee. The first component is impossible to quantify because the method of selecting nominees has changed with almost every President, as have the vehicles used by interest groups to influence the decision. Presidents have based their nominations upon subjective and arbitrary criteria: they have nominated complete strangers and intimate friends, law school deans and men without law degrees, established jurists and persons with little legal experience, savvy politicians and political nov? ices. Some Presidents have delegated substantial responsibility for find? ing nominees while others have made their selections with little advice. Some nominations were widely anticipated while others were complete surprises to everyone ? including the nominee.2 There is, in fact, only one consistent element in the criteria for nomination: each President's hope that his nominee will interpret the law to the advantage of those whose interests the nomination was intended to satisfy. Therefore, this paper takes the President's selection of a nominee as given and analyzes the second component ? the Senate's action ? using those relation

Abstract: In recent years, the role of presidential candidates in constructing their own coalitions to secure both the nomination and election has increased as their reliance on their own party organization ...

Abstract: The political science profession is very far indeed from having pronounced its last word on the subject of the reforms of the presidential nomination process which have so dramatically transformed American elections and the party system. The current wave of reform began over a decade ago, and, more or less on schedule, political scientists have now begun regularly to report findings that suggest that they have been incorporating questions about the consequences of these reforms into their research.

Abstract: A catalog of the general sources of change in the politics of presidential selection, with applications to 1 984, might suggest that this politics has become more changeable-and hence more unpredictable--in the modern era, the period marked off by the extensive procedural reforms enacted after 1968. Yet an initial comparison of the period from 1968 through 1980 with the period from 1848 through 1860, from 1 876 to 1888, or from 191 2 through 1924-to pick several periods of a dozen years each-does not suggest that the ultimate decisions on nomination and even election in the modern era are any more (or less) unpredictable than in certain earlier periods.

Abstract: Recent studies of party activists in the United States have shown an influx of issue-oriented activists into the presidential nominating process since the 1960s. These new activists are described as dogmatic ideologues more interested in promoting their issue concerns than in nominating an electable candidate. Based on our survey of 17,628 delegates attending party conventions in 11 states during the 1980 Democratic and Republican presidential nomination campaigns, we show that activists in both parties weighed electability more heavily than ideology in choosing a party nominee. This finding is in sharp contrast to a strong preference among these same activists for ideological purity over electability when they are presented with questions, typical of past studies, that pose the trade-off only in very general and abstract terms. A partial replication using data from the CPS survey of delegates to the 1972 Democratic national convention supports our findings and leads us to assert that previous studies have underestimated the concern of contemporary party activists with winning.