This report considers contemporary developments in presidential elections. It emphasizes three topics chosen for their recurring importance and notable recent developments: (1) nominating procedures; (2) campaign finance; and (3) the electoral college. The report highlights significant developments in these areas, particularly as they relate to the 2008 and 2012 elections. Inter-party cooperation averted a similar result for 2012, which featured a significantly less front-loaded calendar. The winner-take-all method that had been widely used was replaced with a proportional system for contests before April 1, although strict proportional allocation was not mandated. With an open race for the Republican nomination, the pace of primaries and caucuses and the new allocation rule had an important effect by extending the contest in comparison to past nominating seasons. Significant changes in campaign finance law are expected to shape campaign finance in the 2012 election cycle. Most prominently, this includes developments resulting from the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission . In the aftermath of Citizens United , presidential candidates face additional pressure to raise funds to be able to compete against their opponents and outside groups, particularly new organizations called "super PACs." Moreover, a nongovernmental organization, the National Popular Vote (NPV) campaign, has proposed an interstate compact that would achieve direct election without a constitutional amendment. Additional discussion appears throughout this report. The effort to reduce front-loading for the 2012 election was largely successful, as demonstrated in Figure 1 . The 2012 cycle marked the first since the public financing program's inception in the 1970s that no major candidate accepted public funds. Other CRS products discuss these topics in detail. Declining Participation Over Time

Perhaps the most significant change in the campaign finance environment for recent presidential campaigns is the decline of the public financing program. The Electoral College System: Contemporary Trends103

One of the many compromises incorporated into the U.S. Constitution, the electoral college represented an effort by the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 to provide for a presidential election that would
be free of undue influence by Congress, thus insuring greater independence in the executive; provide a fundamental role for the states by establishing the election as a federal, rather than national, process; allocate electors by a formula that provided some advantage to less populous states; give the states wide-ranging authority over the means by which they would choose their electors: democratically, by popular vote, by the legislature itself, or by another body altogether; and, ultimately; temper popular enthusiasms and partisan and sectional attachments by giving the actual vote to the electors, who, it was hoped, would be prominent citizens of their states and communities, well-informed and educated persons who would make a balanced and measured selection. From proposals offered in recent years, two trends emerge. Results of the 2008 presidential election in Nebraska provide a real-world example of the district plan in action. The National Popular Vote Campaign: Direct Popular Election Through an Interstate Compact

The National Popular Vote (NPV) campaign movement seeks to establish direct popular election of the President and Vice President through an interstate compact, rather than by constitutional amendment. In each case, major changes to presidential selection have occurred since 2008 or are under consideration.
This report considers contemporary developments in presidential elections. It emphasizes three topics chosen for their recurring importance and notable recent developments: (1) nominating procedures; (2) campaign finance; and (3) the electoral college. The report highlights significant developments in these areas, particularly for the 2008 and 2012 elections. It also provides background information about the presidential election process in general. Other CRS products cited throughout this report provide additional information about the topics introduced here.
As the report notes, 2012 was expected to be a noteworthy election cycle for several reasons. Some are extensions of developments that started in 2008 or before, while others are more recent. Key themes discussed in this report include the following:
In recent years, the two major political parties have made efforts to control the "front-loading" phenomenon, the tendency for states to vie to be first or among the first to hold caucuses or primary elections to select presidential nominees. As the result of inter-party cooperation following the 2008 election, front-loading was significantly reduced for 2012. Among Republicans, the winner-take-all method that had been widely used was replaced with a proportional system for contests before April 1, although strict proportional allocation was not mandated. With an open race for the Republican nomination, the pace of primaries and caucuses and the new allocation rule were expected to have an unpredictable effect. In the end, the changes prolonged the contest in comparison to recent previous contests. Significant changes in campaign finance law shaped campaign finance in the 2012 election cycle, largely as a result of the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In the aftermath of Citizens United, presidential candidates may face additional pressure to raise funds to be able to compete against their opponents and outside groups, particularly new organizations called "super PACs." One of the most notable campaign finance developments in recent elections is the decline of the public financing system for presidential candidates. The 2012 cycle marked the first since the public financing program's inception that no major candidate accepted public funds. After decades of congressional inactivity, state-level initiatives to reform the electoral college were actively considered in 2012. Among these were proposals to establish the district system of awarding electoral votes in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and further discussion of the National Popular Vote initiative (NPV). NPV seeks to implement direct popular election of the President and Vice President through an interstate compact, rather than by constitutional amendment. Various states have considered or are considering changes to their participation in the electoral college. Moreover, a nongovernmental organization, the National Popular Vote (NPV) campaign, has proposed an interstate compact that would achieve direct election without a constitutional amendment.
This report will be updated periodically throughout the 2012 election cycle.