Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Nomination

Nomination is the formal act, process, or instance of proposing or designating an individual or entity as a candidate for election to public office, appointment to a position, or receipt of an honor or award.^[1]^[2] The term derives from the Latin nominare, meaning "to name" or "to designate," reflecting its root in identifying and putting forward a specific name for consideration.^[3] In essence, nomination serves as an initial gatekeeping mechanism in selection processes, distinguishing it from the subsequent voting or confirmation stages by focusing on proposal rather than final approval.^[4] In political systems, particularly democracies, nominations are integral to candidate selection, often occurring through mechanisms such as party primaries, caucuses, conventions, or direct appointments by executives.^[5] For instance, in the United States presidential election process, candidates accumulate delegates via state-level contests to secure their party's nomination at national conventions, a system that has evolved since the early 20th century to emphasize voter input over elite control.^[6] This process can highlight internal party divisions, as seen in contested conventions where no candidate achieves a majority on the first ballot, requiring negotiation among delegates.^[7] Beyond politics, nominations extend to awards like the Academy Awards or Nobel Prizes, where committees or peers submit names based on merit criteria, underscoring nomination's role in recognizing achievement without guaranteeing selection.^[8] Notable characteristics of nominations include their potential for strategic manipulation, such as through petition thresholds or nominating committees, which aim to ensure viability but can exclude fringe candidates.^[9] Controversies often arise in high-stakes contexts, like judicial or cabinet nominations, where ideological alignments influence proposals and subsequent Senate confirmations, as evidenced by extended debates over qualifications and partisanship.^[10] Empirically, effective nominations correlate with electoral success by aligning candidates with voter preferences, though data from U.S. elections show that incumbency advantages and media amplification further shape outcomes beyond the nomination phase itself.^[11]

Definition and Etymology

Linguistic Origins

The word nomination originates from the Latin noun nōminātiō (genitive nōminātiōnis), denoting the act of naming or designating, derived from the verb nōmināre, meaning "to name," "to call by name," or "to appoint."^[12] ^[3] The verb nōmināre combines the root nōmen ("name") with the frequentative suffix -āre, emphasizing repeated or intensive action related to naming.^[13] The Latin nōmen itself stems from the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root h₁nómn̥ or nóh₃mn̥, reconstructed as denoting "name," which underlies cognates across Indo-European languages, including Sanskrit nāman, Old English nama, and Gothic namo ("name"). This PIE root reflects an ancient conceptual link between naming and authoritative designation, as evidenced by its persistence in terms for appellation and identity in daughter languages. In English, nomination entered via Middle English nominacioun or nominacion, borrowed around 1425 from Anglo-French or directly from Medieval Latin nominatio, initially in ecclesiastical and legal contexts referring to appointment by name.^[12] By the 15th century, it had evolved to encompass proposals for office or honor, aligning with its Latin sense but adapted to emerging parliamentary and electoral usages.^[12] Related forms include the adjective nominate (c. 1450) and verb nominate (1540s), both back-formed from the noun.^[14]^[3]

Core Concepts and Variations

Nomination constitutes the formal process by which individuals or groups designate candidates for elective office, appointment, or organizational roles, serving as a preliminary filter to align aspirants with institutional goals such as ideological coherence or electoral viability. In political contexts, it typically involves party mechanisms to endorse contenders, distinguishing it from general elections where broader voter approval determines winners. This step emerged as parties consolidated power, enabling coordinated competition rather than fragmented candidacies, as evidenced by early U.S. practices where informal elite consultations evolved into structured selections.^[11]^[15] Core variations hinge on the degree of voter involvement versus elite control. Primaries, direct elections among party affiliates to choose nominees, gained prominence in the U.S. after reforms in the early 20th century, with states holding them 6-9 months before general elections; closed primaries restrict participation to registered party members, while open variants allow independents, potentially broadening appeal but risking ideological dilution.^[16]^[17] Caucuses, participatory meetings where attendees debate and allocate delegates proportionally, contrast by emphasizing grassroots mobilization over secret ballots, as seen in Iowa's first-in-nation events since 1972.^[11] Conventions aggregate delegate votes from prior contests to finalize nominees, historically dominant until primaries supplanted elite-driven processes post-1968 Democratic reforms.^[18] In non-U.S. democratic systems, nominations often prioritize party internals over mass primaries; for instance, many parliamentary setups rely on leader designations or central committee votes to ensure slate unity, reducing intra-party competition but enhancing discipline. Elite nominations, where party insiders select without broad input, persist in contexts valuing expertise over popularity, though they correlate with policy moderation in models comparing processes.^[15]^[19] Organizational variations extend to non-electoral bodies, such as corporate boards nominating directors via shareholder proposals or bylaws, adapting political logic to fiduciary standards. These differences reflect causal trade-offs: broader participation fosters legitimacy but increases volatility, while centralized control streamlines outcomes at the cost of representativeness.^[20]

Historical Development

Ancient and Pre-Modern Practices

In classical Athens during the 5th and 4th centuries BCE, the selection of most public officials relied heavily on sortition, a process of random allotment from pools of eligible male citizens over 30 years of age, which circumvented formal nomination altogether to prevent elite capture and promote equality among citizens.^[21] This method applied to key roles such as archons, councilors (bouleutai), and jurors, with preliminary eligibility often verified through dokimasia examinations rather than nominations.^[22] For the ten strategoi (generals), who required demonstrated military competence, direct election occurred annually by the ecclesia (popular assembly), where candidates typically self-presented or gained acclaim through prior service and public reputation, without structured party or committee endorsement.^[23] In the Roman Republic from circa 509 to 27 BCE, aspiring magistrates such as consuls, praetors, and quaestors followed the cursus honorum, a sequence of offices with age and prior service prerequisites, after which candidates self-nominated by publicly declaring their intent (profiteri) during the canvassing period leading to assembly votes.^[24] No centralized nomination body existed; instead, patricians and plebeians alike built support through personal networks, clientela patronage, and ambitus (vote-seeking), often facing bribery accusations under laws like the Lex Baebia of 181 BCE.^[25] The presiding consul or praetor announced election dates, after which candidates competed directly in the comitia centuriata or tributa, with senate influence informal but significant for higher offices. Dictators, appointed in crises, were nominated by a consul and confirmed by the senate, bypassing popular vote.^[26] Medieval European practices diverged by context, with political nominations often embedded in feudal, ecclesiastical, or republican structures rather than mass elections. In elective monarchies like the Holy Roman Empire after 1356, the seven prince-electors collectively selected the emperor from noble candidates proposed informally by peers or self-advanced through alliances, as seen in the 1438 election of Albert II without prior formal slate.^[27] Ecclesiastical nominations for bishops or abbots involved capitular elections where canons nominated and voted among clergy, subject to lay or papal vetoes amid investiture disputes resolved by the Concordat of Worms in 1122.^[28] Republics like Venice employed multi-stage ducal elections from the 13th century, where the Great Council nominated 200 members by lot, who then sequentially nominated and balloted to narrow candidates, minimizing factional dominance.^[29] Guilds and towns, such as in 14th-century Florence, used scrutiny or sortition from pre-nominated lists drawn by priors to staff magistracies, blending election with randomization to curb oligarchic control.^[30] These processes prioritized consensus among elites or lots over broad popular input, reflecting causal constraints of low literacy and decentralized authority.

Emergence in Modern Representative Systems

In the early years of modern representative systems, such as the United States following the adoption of its Constitution in 1787, the nomination of candidates for executive offices initially relied on informal elite processes rather than formalized party mechanisms.^[31] By 1800, congressional caucuses—meetings of party members in Congress—had become the standard method for nominating presidential and vice-presidential candidates, reflecting a system where legislative insiders controlled selections without direct voter input or constitutional prescription.^[32] This approach, criticized as undemocratic and prone to factional dominance (e.g., dubbed "King Caucus"), persisted through the 1824 election but faced growing opposition amid expanding suffrage and demands for broader participation.^[31] The pivotal shift occurred in the early 1830s with the advent of national nominating conventions, marking the emergence of structured party-driven nominations in representative democracies. In 1831, the Anti-Masonic Party held the first such convention, followed by the National Republicans and Democrats in 1832, where delegates from states gathered to select nominees like Andrew Jackson, aiming to unify party factions and incorporate input beyond Congress.^[31] This innovation responded to the "corrupt bargain" perceptions of the 1824 election and the rise of Jacksonian democracy, which emphasized popular sovereignty; conventions allowed parties to consolidate support, vet candidates for electability, and avoid vote-splitting in general elections by presenting a single slate.^[31] By the 1840s, major parties like the Whigs routinely used conventions, as seen in the 1848 nomination of Zachary Taylor, institutionalizing nominations as a core function of organized parties in systems with indirect executive selection.^[31] In Europe, analogous developments trailed the U.S. model but aligned with the expansion of electorates and party organization during the 19th century. Following Britain's Reform Act of 1832, which enfranchised middle-class voters and dismantled pocket boroughs, Whig and Conservative parties increasingly relied on local associations and central committees for candidate nominations, transitioning from patronage-based endorsements to party-vetted selections to mobilize disciplined voter blocs.^[33] This causal evolution stemmed from the need for coordination in representative assemblies where multi-candidate chaos could undermine legislative majorities; by mid-century, formalized party nominations ensured ideological coherence and resource allocation, as evidenced in France's post-1848 republican experiments and Germany's emerging social democratic structures.^[34] These processes prioritized empirical viability—selecting nominees likely to win seats—over pure individualism, laying groundwork for primaries and caucuses in the 20th century.^[32]

Political Nominations

Nominations for Elective Offices

Nominations for elective offices constitute the mechanism by which political parties or independent entities designate candidates for public positions determined by popular vote, thereby shaping voter options in general elections. This process, absent from constitutional mandates in systems like the United States, evolved from elite-driven caucuses to broader participation via primaries and conventions, reflecting shifts toward democratizing candidate selection while maintaining party control over ballot access.^[11]^[35] In modern democratic systems, parties primarily employ primaries, caucuses, or conventions for nominations. Primaries involve direct voter elections, often held 6 to 9 months before general elections, where participants select delegates or candidates via secret ballot; these can be closed (limited to party members), open (allowing independents), or semi-open, varying by jurisdiction to balance inclusivity with party purity.^[16]^[36] Caucuses, by contrast, are participatory meetings where attendees debate, form groups by preference, and allocate delegates through public voting, typically yielding lower turnout but enabling persuasion among participants, as seen in states like Iowa.^[37] National conventions then formalize the nominee by aggregating delegate votes, a step that historically involved brokered deals but now largely ratifies primary outcomes, requiring a majority for selection.^[5]^[38] For non-presidential offices, such as congressional or local seats, nominations often occur via state-level primaries or party conventions without national delegate systems; for instance, in New York, parties designate candidates through internal processes or petitions, while independents must gather signatures equivalent to a percentage of prior votes, typically 5% or 3,500 to 15,000 depending on the office.^[39]^[40] This structure ensures parties vet candidates on ideology and viability, though critics argue primaries can favor ideologically extreme figures over moderates due to low-turnout distortions, a pattern observed in data from cycles like 2016 where insurgent campaigns prevailed.^[41] Internationally, practices diverge: some parliamentary systems, like the United Kingdom's, rely on party executives or member votes for constituency candidates without public primaries, emphasizing centralized control to align with platform cohesion.^[35] Empirical analyses indicate that nomination methods influence candidate quality and diversity; direct primaries correlate with higher campaign spending—exceeding $16 billion in the 2020 U.S. cycle—but also with greater voter engagement, as measured by participation rates rising from under 20% in early caucuses to over 30% in competitive primaries.^[7] These processes, while promoting accountability, can entrench incumbents through resource advantages, with reelection rates for U.S. House nominees averaging 90% since 1990.^[18]

Party Primaries and Conventions

Party primaries are elections conducted by political parties to select nominees for general elections, allowing registered voters affiliated with the party to choose among competing candidates for offices such as president, governor, or members of Congress. In the United States, where this system is most formalized, primaries typically occur several months before the general election, with most states scheduling them between 6 and 9 months prior to a presidential vote. Voters in primaries cast secret ballots for their preferred candidate, and the winner secures the party's nomination in winner-take-all systems or allocates delegates proportionally, depending on state rules. This process democratizes candidate selection compared to earlier elite-driven methods, though turnout often remains low, averaging around 20-30% of eligible voters in presidential primaries.^[16]^[11] Primaries vary by type, influencing participation and party control. Closed primaries restrict voting to registered party members only, preserving intra-party discipline; as of 2024, 15 states use this exclusively for presidential contests. Open primaries permit any registered voter to participate in one party's primary regardless of affiliation, potentially broadening input but risking crossover voting to influence outcomes; 17 states employ open systems. Semi-closed or semi-open variants allow independents or unaffiliated voters to choose a party ballot on election day, used in states like New Hampshire and South Carolina, which hold early primaries that can shape national momentum. Nonpartisan blanket primaries, as in California and Washington, advance the top two vote-getters irrespective of party, though parties may then hold conventions to endorse. These variations reflect state-level trade-offs between inclusivity and party purity, with closed systems favored by party leaders to minimize external interference.^[36]^[42] For presidential nominations, primaries and caucuses form a sequential contest across states, allocating delegates to the national convention. Caucuses, used in about a dozen states like Iowa, involve public meetings where participants discuss and vote, often yielding more activist-driven results due to higher time commitment. Delegate allocation rules differ by party: Republicans largely use winner-take-all after early proportional rounds, while Democrats mandate proportional representation statewide if a candidate exceeds 15% of the vote. A candidate needs 1,976 of 2,429 Republican delegates or 1,968 of 3,949 Democratic delegates for nomination in 2024, with superdelegates (party insiders) playing a reduced role post-2016 Democratic reforms to prioritize primary voters. Early states like Iowa and [New Hampshire](/page/New Hampshire), despite small populations, exert outsized influence through media amplification, though their delegate shares are minimal (e.g., Iowa's 40 Democratic delegates represent under 2% of total).^[16]^[7] National conventions formalize the nomination, convening party delegates to ratify the primary winner and adopt a platform. Held every four years in summer—such as the 2024 Republican convention in Milwaukee from July 15-18 and Democratic in Chicago from August 19-22—conventions require a majority vote among delegates for the presidential nominee. Historically decisive until the 1970s, conventions now largely coronate frontrunners, with roll-call votes serving ceremonial purposes unless no candidate secures a majority beforehand, triggering a "brokered" convention. Beyond nomination, events include vice-presidential selection, speeches to unify the party, and policy debates, broadcast to sway public opinion and raise funds. The process ensures party cohesion post-primaries, though delegate selection often mirrors primary outcomes, binding most to primary voters' choices.^[43]^[7]

Executive and Judicial Appointments

In presidential systems characterized by separation of powers, the head of the executive branch typically nominates individuals to key positions within the executive bureaucracy and judiciary, with these nominations requiring confirmation by the legislative branch to maintain checks and balances. This process stems from constitutional provisions designed to prevent unchecked executive authority, as exemplified in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants the President power to nominate "Officers of the United States" such as cabinet secretaries, ambassadors, and agency heads, subject to the Senate's advice and consent.^[44]^[45] The nomination begins with the executive's selection of a candidate, often after internal vetting for qualifications, background, and policy alignment, followed by submission of a formal nomination package to the legislature, which includes biographical details, financial disclosures, and ethical clearances.^[46] For executive appointments in the United States, the President nominates approximately 1,200 positions requiring Senate confirmation out of around 4,000 total political appointees, including 15 cabinet-level department heads like the Secretary of State or Defense.^[47] Upon receipt, the Senate refers the nomination to the relevant standing committee—such as the Committee on Foreign Relations for ambassadors or the Committee on Homeland Security for the Secretary of Homeland Security—which conducts hearings to assess the nominee's fitness, expertise, and potential conflicts of interest.^[48] Committee votes advance the nomination to the full Senate, where debate, possible amendments, and a simple majority vote determine confirmation; historically, most cabinet nominations proceed swiftly via voice vote with minimal opposition, reflecting the norm of deference to executive choices in non-controversial cases.^[45] Recess appointments, allowed under Article II for temporary fillings during Senate adjournments exceeding 10 days, bypass confirmation but expire at the end of the next session, a mechanism invoked sparingly to address vacancies amid legislative delays.^[44] Judicial appointments follow a parallel yet distinct path, emphasizing long-term independence through lifetime tenure for Article III federal judges in the U.S., including Supreme Court justices, circuit court judges, and district judges.^[49] The President nominates candidates, often drawing from recommendations by the Department of Justice, bar associations, or home-state senators, with the Senate Judiciary Committee handling review via public hearings that probe judicial philosophy, prior rulings, and impartiality.^[50] For lower federal courts, the "blue slip" tradition since 1917 allows home-state senators to signal approval or objection, influencing committee progression though not formally binding.^[51] Confirmation requires a Senate majority, after which the President commissions the judge; as of October 2025, presidents average about 17 judicial appointments in their first year, varying by partisan control of the Senate and vacancy rates.^[52] This process underscores causal mechanisms for judicial insulation from electoral pressures, enabling rulings based on legal merits rather than transient politics, though it can extend over months or years for high-profile seats.^[53] In broader presidential systems, such as those in Latin America or parts of Africa modeled on the U.S. framework, executive nominations for ministerial and judicial roles similarly involve legislative vetting, though durations and criteria differ based on local constitutions—e.g., fixed terms for some judges rather than lifetime appointments—to adapt to varying institutional stabilities.^[54] Empirical data from U.S. practices indicate that confirmation rates exceed 90% for nominees advancing past committee, attributable to the executive's advance screening and senators' incentives to avoid blocking broadly qualified candidates, thereby minimizing governance disruptions.^[45]^[46]

Criticisms of Political Nomination Processes

Political nomination processes for elective offices, particularly through party primaries and conventions, have been criticized for producing candidates who appeal to ideological extremes rather than broad electorates. Primary voters, often more partisan and ideologically intense than general election participants, incentivize nominees to prioritize purist positions over electability and governance competence, as seen in the 2016 Republican field of 17 candidates where factional appeals dominated.^[55] This dynamic, exacerbated by the diminished role of party insiders since reforms like the McGovern-Fraser Commission in 1972, reduces vetting for viability and increases risks of nominating figures with limited administrative experience, such as those relying on media spectacle over policy depth.^[55] Empirical surveys indicate low approval for the system, with only 35% of 2016 voters deeming primaries effective for candidate selection.^[55] Low voter participation further undermines representativeness, with caucuses drawing turnout as low as 9.9% in 2016 compared to 32.4% in primaries, disenfranchising working-class and family-constrained individuals.^[56] Closed primaries in 22 states exclude over 23 million independents, while rules like 15% delegate thresholds waste more than 3 million votes in the 2020 Democratic contest on non-viable candidates.^[56] Divisive contests, such as those requiring runoffs, harm party cohesion by reducing general-election vote shares by approximately 6 percentage points and win probabilities by 21 percentage points, per regression discontinuity analyses of U.S. legislative races.^[57] These flaws contribute to nominee unfavorability records, as in 2016 when both major candidates posted historically high disapproval ratings, fostering "lesser evil" voting.^[56] Executive and judicial appointment processes face scrutiny for excessive politicization and inefficiency, with roughly 4,000 civilian political appointees—far more than in peer democracies—leading to persistent vacancies averaging 20-25% of key Senate-confirmed roles due to confirmation gridlock.^[58] Average confirmation times have nearly doubled over two decades, from 80 days under George W. Bush to 145 days under Joe Biden in their first two years, driven by partisan holds and procedural obstructions that consume over half of recent Senate floor time on nominations.^[59] Appointees frequently lack specialized expertise compared to career officials, correlating with inferior agency performance, including lower management scores and delayed responses, while high turnover disrupts long-term policy continuity.^[58] Critics argue this system prioritizes loyalty over merit, enabling cronyism and short-term political goals that impair bureaucratic effectiveness, though defenses emphasize the need for political alignment in implementation.^[58]

Parliamentary and Organizational Procedures

Nominations in Deliberative Assemblies

In deliberative assemblies governed by standard parliamentary procedure, nominations serve as the mechanism for proposing candidates to fill elective offices, board positions, or committee vacancies, effectively creating a motion in the form of "that [nominee] be elected" to the specified role.^[60] This process ensures orderly candidate selection prior to voting, allowing members to deliberate and express preferences without requiring a formal second for each nomination, as the act of nominating is not debatable or amendable but can be withdrawn by the nominator before voting begins.^[9] Assemblies typically follow rules outlined in manuals like Robert's Rules of Order, where the presiding officer calls for nominations once the election item is reached on the agenda, prompting members to obtain the floor and state "I nominate [name]."^[61] Nominations may originate from multiple sources to promote inclusivity and prevent undue concentration of power. The chair can nominate if authorized by bylaws or custom, particularly in small assemblies or for temporary committees, but must relinquish the chair if making additional nominations to avoid bias.^[9] A nominating committee, appointed by the assembly or elected per bylaws, submits a slate of candidates after vetting qualifications, though this does not preclude floor nominations unless bylaws specify otherwise; such committees report at a designated meeting, listing nominees without endorsement to maintain neutrality.^[62] Floor nominations remain the default method in most cases, enabling any eligible member to propose candidates even after a committee report, ensuring democratic access unless restricted by assembly rules for efficiency in large bodies.^[63] Alternative methods include nominations by ballot, mail, or petition, used when in-person participation is limited, with petitions requiring a minimum number of signatures as defined in bylaws to qualify a candidate.^[9] Once sufficient nominations are made—often determined by the chair observing a pause in proposals—the presiding officer declares nominations closed unless a member moves to reopen or close them formally, which requires a majority vote.^[61] If only one nominee is presented for a position, the assembly may elect by acclamation, with the chair announcing the result without a vote, provided no objection arises; contested positions proceed to voting by ballot, voice, roll call, or rising, as specified in bylaws or by majority decision.^[61] Bylaws may impose eligibility criteria, such as prior membership or term limits, and assemblies can adopt special rules for cumulative voting in multi-position elections to allow strategic allocation of votes across candidates.^[64] This framework prioritizes member participation while minimizing disruption, though deviations occur in specialized assemblies like legislative bodies, where nominations might integrate with caucus selections or executive recommendations.^[9]

Specific Rules and Motions

In parliamentary procedure, particularly as codified in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, a nomination functions as a non-debatable motion equivalent to proposing a candidate to fill a blank in the assumed main motion "that [name] be elected" to the specified office or position.^[9] Any qualified member may offer a nomination from the floor once the chair has declared the assembly open for nominations, typically immediately preceding the vote on an election; no second is required, and the chair states the nomination without debate unless the assembly's bylaws specify otherwise.^[63] Nominations remain open until closed by vote or until sufficient time has elapsed as per custom or rule, allowing multiple candidates to ensure competitive selection without premature restriction.^[61] Key subsidiary motions directly pertaining to nominations include the motion to close nominations, which aims to end the nomination period and proceed to balloting; this requires a two-thirds vote in the affirmative if proposed before the assembly has effectively exhausted opportunities for further nominees, protecting minority rights by preventing hasty closure.^[62] Conversely, the motion to reopen nominations permits resuming the process after closure, also requiring a two-thirds vote, and is in order only if new circumstances justify it, such as the discovery of an ineligible prior nominee or unforeseen vacancies.^[9] These motions are not amendable and take precedence over the act of nominating but yield to higher-ranking questions like appeals or points of order concerning eligibility.^[62] Additional rules govern nomination mechanics: a nominee need not be present or aware of the nomination, and self-nominations are permissible unless prohibited by bylaws; however, nominations lapse if the election is not held promptly, necessitating renewal.^[63] In assemblies using nominating committees, the committee's report presents slate nominations as a consent calendar, but floor nominations remain allowable to uphold democratic access, with the chair calling for them explicitly after the report.^[61] Bylaws may impose restrictions, such as requiring petitions for certain offices or limiting nominators to members in good standing, but deviations must align with the principle of free assembly choice to avoid undue barriers.^[9]

Applications in Non-Governmental Organizations

In non-governmental organizations (NGOs), nomination processes primarily facilitate the selection of board members, officers, and committee chairs to ensure governance aligns with the organization's mission and bylaws. These procedures often involve a dedicated nominating committee, typically composed of current board members or stakeholders, tasked with identifying candidates based on predefined criteria such as expertise, commitment, diversity of skills, and alignment with organizational goals. For instance, the committee evaluates potential nominees' past attendance records, financial contributions, and willingness to serve, aiming to recruit individuals who can advance strategic objectives without conflicts of interest.^[65] ^[66] The standard nomination workflow begins with soliciting suggestions from existing members, staff, or external networks, followed by vetting through interviews and reference checks to confirm suitability. Bylaws usually mandate transparency, such as public calls for nominations and clear qualification thresholds, to mitigate risks of cronyism; however, the committee often presents a slate of recommended candidates to the full membership or board for approval via vote. In organizations adopting parliamentary procedures like Robert's Rules of Order, nominations may open from the floor during meetings, but the committee's slate carries presumptive weight unless challenged. This structure, refined over decades in U.S. nonprofits since the 1950s formalization of board governance standards, balances merit-based selection with democratic input, though implementation varies by NGO size and sector—smaller advocacy groups may rely on informal member referrals, while larger entities like international aid organizations employ formalized application forms.^[62] ^[67] ^[68] Specific examples illustrate adaptations: The National Academy of Inventors, an NGO promoting innovation, requires nominations for fellows by July 31 annually, with selections announced in December based on invention impact and leadership, emphasizing empirical contributions over affiliations. Similarly, UNESCO-partnered NGOs nominate candidates for awards like the Carlos J. Finlay Medal, restricted to official partners and vetted for scientific merit by September 1 deadlines. In community-based NGOs, such as those under Parent Booster USA, nomination forms collect self-reported skills and endorsements, ensuring candidates demonstrate prior volunteer engagement before election. These practices underscore a causal emphasis on competence to sustain operational efficacy, with committees often rotating annually to prevent entrenchment—evidenced by surveys showing healthier boards in NGOs with structured processes, where turnover rates average 10-15% yearly.^[69] ^[70] ^[71] ^[72]

Nominations for Awards and Honors

Processes in Formal Recognition Systems

Formal recognition systems for awards and honors, such as the Nobel Prizes, Academy Awards, and Pulitzer Prizes, typically involve structured, multi-stage procedures designed to identify recipients based on demonstrated excellence in specific domains. These processes begin with defining eligibility criteria for both nominators and nominees, often restricting nominations to qualified experts to minimize unqualified submissions and enhance credibility. For instance, nominators for the Nobel Prizes are limited to categories including previous laureates, university professors in relevant fields, and members of specified academies, with invitations sent annually in September and a submission deadline of January 31.^[73]^[74] Self-nominations are prohibited across these systems to prevent self-promotion and ensure external validation of merit.^[75] The nomination phase emphasizes confidentiality and documentation, requiring submitters to provide evidence of the nominee's contributions, such as publications or achievements. In the Nobel process, thousands of invitations yield hundreds of nominations per category, which are screened by specialized committees over an eight-month period involving expert consultations but no direct contact with nominees to avoid influence. Similarly, for the Pulitzer Prizes, entries are submitted with supporting materials and fees, then reviewed by appointed juries of domain experts who select three finalists without ranking preference, forwarding them to the Pulitzer Prize Board for final adjudication.^[76]^[77] The Academy Awards employ branch-specific voting, where members of relevant guilds—such as directors or actors—nominate from eligible works via secret ballot, generating shortlists before broader academy-wide votes determine winners, with preferential balloting used for Best Picture to reflect consensus.^[78]^[79] Evaluation and selection stages incorporate rigorous scrutiny to prioritize empirical impact over popularity. Nobel committees consult additional specialists and may request further documentation, culminating in a committee recommendation to the awarding institution's assembly for a vote requiring majority approval. Pulitzer juries focus on verifiable journalistic or artistic quality, while the board retains discretion to select from nominees or, rarely, override with alternatives based on overall merit. In entertainment awards like the Oscars, final decisions use ranked-choice voting to mitigate strategic ballot exhaustion, ensuring outcomes align with collective expert judgment rather than plurality dominance. These mechanisms aim to filter for causal contributions—such as groundbreaking research or influential works—though outcomes can vary due to subjective interpretations of "excellence" within committees.^[80]^[81]^[82] Integrity safeguards, including 50-year secrecy for Nobel nominees and prohibitions on lobbying, address risks of bias or external pressure, though empirical analyses of past selections reveal occasional concentrations in certain institutions or demographics, prompting scrutiny of committee compositions. Variations exist by field: scientific prizes like Nobel emphasize peer-reviewed evidence, while arts honors incorporate creative criteria assessed by practitioners. Overall, these processes balance accessibility for qualified input with gatekeeping to uphold award prestige, with final announcements timed for public ceremonies following internal deliberations completed by autumn.^[73]^[83]

Examples Across Fields

In scientific and medical fields, the Nobel Prizes illustrate a highly selective, expert-driven nomination process. For categories such as Physics, Chemistry, and Physiology or Medicine, nominations are extended by invitation only to qualified individuals, including prior laureates, members of specified national academies and learned societies, and professors at recognized universities in relevant disciplines; self-nominations are prohibited, and the process commences annually in September with confidential submissions evaluated by Nobel Committees before final selection by the awarding institutions.^[84] The Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences follows a parallel structure, with the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences selecting from committee-recommended candidates nominated by similar expert invitees.^[85] In literature, the Nobel Prize nomination process confines submissions to a defined set of nominators, such as Swedish Academy members, literature professors at universities, and previous laureates, who propose candidates for review by the Nobel Committee in Literature; the Swedish Academy then votes by majority in October to designate the laureate, emphasizing works of lasting artistic value.^[86] The Pulitzer Prizes in journalism, letters, drama, and music rely on open submissions from creators and publishers, with small juries of specialists in each category reviewing entries to nominate three finalists—submitted without ranked preference—to the Pulitzer Prize Board, which deliberates and selects winners, often overriding jury recommendations to ensure alignment with criteria like public service or artistic excellence.^[77]^[81] In the performing arts, film nominations for the Academy Awards are branch-specific: members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' relevant branches (e.g., actors for performance categories) vote via secret ballot to select up to five nominees from eligible submissions, after which the full membership employs preferential voting for winners in most categories, except Best Picture, which uses ranked-choice ballots.^[87] For music, the Grammy Awards begin with online entries from labels and artists screened for eligibility by the Recording Academy, followed by voting from a pool of over 10,000 members to determine five to eight nominees per category, with final outcomes decided by member ballots prioritizing artistic and technical merit.^[88] Sports awards demonstrate varied approaches emphasizing performance metrics and peer or media input. The Heisman Trophy, recognizing the top U.S. college football player, involves no formal nomination phase but relies on visibility from statistics and games; over 900 voters—including media from six regions, former winners, and select others—rank their top three candidates, assigning 3 points for first, 2 for second, and 1 for third, with the highest total prevailing.^[89]^[90] In baseball, National Baseball Hall of Fame candidates—players retired at least five years receiving prior ballot support or screened by a committee—appear on ballots mailed to Baseball Writers' Association of America members, who select up to 10, requiring 75% approval for induction based on career contributions, character, and on-field record.^[91]^[92]

Critiques of Selection Bias and Integrity

Critiques of nomination processes for awards and honors frequently highlight selection bias, where committee decisions favor candidates from established networks, shared ideologies, or demographic similarities, often due to opaque criteria and implicit prejudices. For instance, in scientific prizes, selection is criticized for prioritizing visibility and institutional affiliation over merit, with processes lacking transparency that perpetuates homophily among evaluators.^[93] Empirical analyses reveal persistent gender disparities, such as male applicants receiving fellowships at higher rates across categories, even after controlling for qualifications, suggesting evaluative biases like the halo effect where one trait unduly influences overall assessment.^[94]^[95] In prestigious honors like the Nobel Prizes, underrepresentation underscores bias: only 3% of science laureates have been women, and none of the 617 science recipients have been Black individuals, exceeding disparities in the fields themselves and pointing to Eurocentric and network-driven selections.^[96] Political and cultural influences compound this, as seen in Nobel Peace Prize choices perceived as advancing specific geopolitical agendas rather than objective peace contributions, with historical patterns showing favoritism toward Western-aligned figures.^[97] Such biases arise causally from self-selecting committees, where members nominate and evaluate peers from similar backgrounds, reducing exposure to diverse candidates and entrenching elite control. Integrity concerns involve outright procedural flaws, including corruption and undue influence. The Nobel Foundation has faced scandals, such as the 2018 Swedish Academy crisis involving sexual misconduct allegations against a non-member influencing literature selections, which delayed the prize and prompted institutional reforms to restore trust. In the Academy Awards, historical bribery attempts in the 1930s—such as lavish gifts to voters—prompted rules expanding balloting to curb influence peddling, though critics argue persistent insider lobbying and campaign spending undermine merit.^[98] Recent nominations, like those overlooking films critical of certain progressive orthodoxies while amplifying others, suggest ideological conformity pressures committees toward politically safe choices, eroding perceived impartiality.^[99] These issues are not merely anecdotal; studies on peer-reviewed awards show that diversifying nominator pools and using structured rubrics can mitigate bias, yet many organizations resist due to entrenched practices favoring familiarity.^[100] Overall, while awards aim to recognize excellence, critiques emphasize that without verifiable, blind evaluation protocols, nominations risk rewarding proximity to power over substantive achievement, as evidenced by repeated patterns across fields.^[101]

Broader Contexts and Variations

Corporate and Business Nominations

In corporate settings, nominations for board directors are typically overseen by a dedicated nominating committee, often comprising independent directors, which evaluates candidates based on criteria such as professional experience, industry knowledge, ethical standards, and alignment with the company's strategic needs. This process involves identifying potential nominees through internal referrals, executive search firms, or networks, followed by screening, interviews, and due diligence to ensure qualifications match board gaps, such as expertise in finance, technology, or risk management.^[102]^[103] For public companies, bylaws and proxy statements outline procedural requirements, including advance notice for nominations and disclosure of nominee backgrounds, with the full board approving final recommendations for shareholder vote at annual meetings.^[104] Shareholder nominations represent a key mechanism for external input in corporate governance, allowing eligible investors to propose director candidates, though historically constrained by company-specific rules like ownership thresholds (e.g., 3% for at least three years under some proxy access bylaws) and submission deadlines to the corporate secretary, often 90-120 days before the proxy statement. Regulatory reforms, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's 2010 proxy access rules (later challenged but influencing bylaws) and the 2022 universal proxy rule, have facilitated greater shareholder participation by enabling votes for dissident nominees on a single ballot alongside management slates, aiming to reduce barriers in contested elections.^[105]^[106]^[107] Criticisms of these processes highlight persistent insider dominance, where CEO or board influence can limit diverse or challenging candidates, potentially entrenching management and reducing accountability, as evidenced by studies showing CEO sway in selections despite formal independence. Ineffective nomination practices have been linked to boards unfit for oversight, with surveys indicating low executive satisfaction (29%) with board performance and calls for replacing underperformers, underscoring risks of skill mismatches or conflicts in high-stakes environments.^[108]^[109]^[110] Beyond governance, business nominations extend to executive roles like CEO successions, often handled by compensation or governance committees with input from search firms, emphasizing track records in revenue growth or crisis management, and to industry awards such as the Forbes or Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year, where self-nominations or peer submissions require evidence of innovation, such as quantifiable market impact (e.g., revenue multiples or job creation metrics). These processes prioritize merit but face scrutiny for subjectivity, with data showing underrepresentation of certain demographics despite diversity mandates in some jurisdictions.^[111]^[112]

Academic and Professional Contexts

In academic institutions, nominations typically initiate the selection process for faculty positions, committee roles, awards, and honors such as fellowships in academies like the National Academy of Sciences. The process often begins with a call for nominations from peers, department heads, or self-nominations, requiring submission of a candidate's curriculum vitae, a nomination letter detailing achievements and fit for the role, and supporting letters from colleagues.^[113] For instance, nominations for major awards from bodies like the National Academies involve identifying candidates in the fall, compiling materials including CVs and endorser letters over winter, and submitting by mid-year deadlines, with institutional offices providing guidance to strengthen packets.^[114] Internal university processes, such as those for faculty achievement awards, frequently limit each college to one nominee per category, followed by review by a faculty committee evaluating letters of recommendation and performance metrics.^[115] Empirical research indicates that academic nomination processes can exhibit biases influenced by factors like homophily and institutional reputation, where nominators preferentially select candidates from similar national or prestige backgrounds, leading to modular networks that reinforce existing hierarchies rather than pure merit.^[116] Studies on peer nominations in evaluations reveal unconscious biases affecting candidate assessments, particularly in hiring and awards, with evidence from controlled experiments showing implicit assumptions disadvantaging certain demographics in academic evaluations.^[117] For example, in police recognition nominations—a proxy for professional peer processes—white supervisors nominated Black officers less frequently conditional on equivalent performance, suggesting supervisor-level bias in subjective judgments.^[118] In professional contexts, such as medicine, law, and engineering, nominations for leadership roles, certifications, or society honors follow structured protocols emphasizing documented contributions and peer endorsements. In engineering societies like the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, nominators must familiarize themselves with specific criteria, submitting detailed packets early to allow time for compilation, often including evidence of technical impact and service.^[119] The Royal Academy of Engineering's fellowship election requires a proposer—typically a fellow—to collaborate with the nominee on a comprehensive case highlighting innovation and leadership, vetted through multi-stage peer review.^[120] Medical faculty nominations, as outlined by the Association of American Medical Colleges, stress securing targeted letters of support from influential colleagues to bolster packets for promotions or awards.^[121] Professional nominations in these fields also face scrutiny for integrity, with rubrics and structured criteria introduced to mitigate bias, though studies show persistent effects from evaluator demographics and context, such as gender biases varying by course level in peer selections.^[122] Guidance from professional bodies recommends early initiation, precise alignment with award metrics, and avoidance of generic praise in favor of quantifiable impacts to enhance success rates.^[123] Overall, these processes prioritize verifiable achievements but remain susceptible to network-driven selections, underscoring the need for transparent, multi-source evaluations to approximate merit-based outcomes.

Legal and Ecclesiastical Nominations

In legal systems, nominations typically involve the executive branch proposing candidates for judicial or prosecutorial roles, requiring legislative confirmation to ensure checks and balances. Under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the President nominates federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, with the Senate's advice and consent; this process has governed appointments since 1789, resulting in 165 Supreme Court nominations to date.^[124] The procedure includes the President consulting home-state senators via the "blue slip" tradition, established by the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1917, where senators approve or object to district and circuit court nominees from their states.^[51] Following nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings, debates, and votes; for circuit courts, post-cloture debate lasts up to 30 hours, while district courts allow two hours.^[125] Historically, presidential discretion in judicial selections is constrained by Senate approval, with 27 of 165 Supreme Court nominations failing since 1789, often due to partisan opposition or withdrawal.^[126] For lower federal courts, senators from the nominee's state influence selections through established processes, such as recommending candidates from their districts.^[127] This nomination framework extends to other legal roles, like U.S. Attorneys, but judicial appointments emphasize lifetime tenure under Article III to insulate judges from political pressures.^[50] Ecclesiastical nominations pertain to the designation of clergy for hierarchical offices within religious institutions, often blending consultation with centralized authority. In the Catholic Church, the Pope holds ultimate authority to appoint bishops, as codified in Canon 377 of the Code of Canon Law, but the process involves the apostolic nuncio surveying local bishops, clergy, and laity to compile a terna—a list of three candidates—for papal consideration.^[128] This consultation ensures candidates demonstrate pastoral competence, doctrinal fidelity, and administrative skill, though the Pope may select beyond the list or request alternatives.^[128] The selection remains confidential to avoid factionalism, with evaluations drawn from outgoing bishops, neighboring dioceses, and Roman Curia members; historically, civil authorities nominated candidates until the 19th century, when papal exclusivity prevailed amid secular encroachments.^[129] In other traditions, such as the Anglican Communion, bishops are nominated by bodies like the Crown Nominations Commission in England, comprising clergy and laity who propose candidates to the Prime Minister for royal approval, reflecting a blend of ecclesiastical and state influence.^[130] These processes prioritize spiritual qualifications over electoral popularity, aiming to maintain doctrinal continuity, though critiques note potential insider biases favoring institutional conformity.^[131]

Sociological and Theoretical Implications

Role in Meritocracy vs. Elite Control

In theory, nomination processes serve meritocracy by enabling the identification and elevation of individuals based on superior competence, innovation, or achievement, as determined by evaluators with relevant expertise. This mechanism theoretically filters talent through competitive proposals, fostering organizational efficiency and social mobility by rewarding empirical performance over arbitrary factors like lineage or connections. Proponents argue that structured nominations, when transparent and criteria-driven, approximate first-principles selection akin to natural or market processes, where outcomes reflect causal contributions to value creation.^[132] Empirical evidence, however, reveals substantial deviations toward elite control, where nominators—often entrenched within prestige networks—prioritize homophily, seniority, and relational ties over isolated merit metrics. A 2019 analysis of over 100,000 nominations for scientific awards across physics, chemistry, and economics found that nominees endorsed by centrally positioned, high-reputation nominators received disproportionate advantages, with homophily (similarity in institutional affiliation or background) amplifying selection probabilities by up to 20-30% beyond citation-based merit alone; this pattern persisted even after controlling for productivity, indicating network-driven perpetuation of elite dominance.^[133] Similarly, in political contexts, party nomination systems favor incumbents via seniority rules: a study of Brazilian mayoral races from 1997-2012 showed that seniority increased nomination odds by 15-25%, entrenching experienced elites and reducing turnover, as parties allocate slots to reliable allies rather than high-potential newcomers.^[134] These dynamics suggest nominations often function as gatekeeping tools, where elite nominators—concentrated in academia, politics, and corporate boards—reproduce inequality by embedding biases like gender exclusion; for instance, Japanese Liberal Democratic Party nominations from 1997-2017 exhibited a 10-15% penalty for female candidates attributable to selector prejudice, not voter preferences.^[135] Such patterns challenge meritocratic ideals, as elite-controlled nominations correlate with stagnating outcomes: reduced innovation in fields reliant on fresh perspectives and widened disparities, with women comprising only 14-21% of recipients in prestigious awards like the Kavli Prize (2008-2020) despite rising publication parity.^[136] Causal realism implies that without reforms like blind evaluations or diversified nominator pools, these processes prioritize network stability over verifiable talent, effectively subsidizing elite reproduction at the expense of broader efficacy. Attribution of bias to institutional incentives, rather than individual malice, underscores the structural tilt, though academic sources on these topics warrant scrutiny for potential underreporting of network effects due to insider perspectives.^[137]

Empirical Evidence on Outcomes and Efficacy

Studies of nomination processes for prestigious awards, such as the Nobel Prize in Economics, reveal that social networks and reputational factors exert substantial influence on selection outcomes, often overshadowing pure merit-based evaluation. Analysis of nomination records from 1969 to 2012 demonstrated that candidates endorsed by nominators with high centrality in the academic prestige network—measured by eigenvector centrality—were over three times more likely to win, with homophily along lines of nationality and institutional affiliation further amplifying selection probabilities by up to 50%.^[133] Similarly, in scientific prizes, opaque nomination criteria and reliance on insider recommendations perpetuate biases, as evidenced by low nomination rates for women (e.g., 7-13% for Nobel prizes in chemistry and physiology/medicine from 1901-2021), leading to skewed recipient demographics despite comparable or superior contributions in some cases.^[138]^[93] Empirical interventions targeting nomination equity have shown measurable efficacy in diversifying outcomes. A randomized pilot in a medical institution increased female nominations by 40% through targeted prompts to nominators, resulting in a 25% rise in female award recipients without diluting overall quality, as assessed by independent evaluators.^[139] However, broader data on award impacts indicate limited causal efficacy for long-term performance gains; recipients of national business awards experienced no detectable shifts in career trajectories, salary progression, or productivity metrics post-win, suggesting awards serve more as recognition of prior achievements than drivers of future success.^[140] In creative fields, nomination effects appear more pronounced for early-career trajectories. Examination of Academy Award nominations for performers from 1927 to 2019 found that early nods correlated with sustained increases in subsequent project volume and revenue generation, with nominated artists securing 15-20% more high-profile roles over the following decade compared to non-nominated peers of similar baseline talent.^[141] Conversely, some honors yield demotivating effects or short-term boosts only; field experiments with symbolic awards for attendance or performance showed initial motivation spikes that dissipated within months, occasionally crowding out intrinsic drive and leading to 10-15% performance declines among high-achievers.^[142] Cross-domain inequities in nomination-to-outcome pipelines underscore efficacy challenges tied to systemic barriers. In academic honors, underrepresented minority faculty receive 20-30% fewer nominations relative to output metrics like publications, perpetuating cycles of lower visibility and funding access, as quantified in institutional audits of recognition programs.^[143] These patterns align with causal evidence from peer effects studies, where successful nominees within networks boost application rates among colleagues by 75%, concentrating opportunities among elite clusters rather than broadly meritocratic diffusion.^[144] Overall, while nominations signal prestige and can marginally enhance visibility, empirical data highlight their limited role in fostering superior outcomes, frequently undermined by network homophily and selection opacity that favor incumbents over innovators.^[145]

References

[1]
NOMINATION Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
1. The act, process, or an instance of nominating. 2. The state of being nominated. Examples of nomination in a Sentence.
[2]
NOMINATION | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
the act of officially suggesting someone or something for a job, position, or prize. There have been two nominations for the new job.
[3]
Nominate - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
Originating in the 1540s from Latin nominare ("to name"), nominate means to call by name, appoint to office, or propose as a candidate.
[4]
Nomination - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms | Vocabulary.com
The first step in the process of electing a candidate for office or giving someone an award is nomination. When someone is officially recommended as a ...
[5]
The U.S. Presidential Nominating Process
Jan 13, 2020 · Every four years, U.S. presidential candidates compete in a series of state contests to gain their party's nomination. The political process ...
[6]
Overview of the presidential election process | USAGov
Feb 25, 2025 · Spring of the year before an election, Candidates register with the Federal Election Commission to run for president. While there is no federal ...
[7]
2024 Presidential Nominating Process: Frequently Asked Questions
Jul 9, 2024 · How do national party rules address whether delegates are bound to support specific candidates at the national conventions? Democrats ...Scope of the Report · What is the relationship... · What roles do federal or state...
[8]
NOMINATION definition in American English - Collins Dictionary
A nomination is an official suggestion of someone as a candidate in an election or for a job. ...his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination.
[9]
Robert's Rules of Order, Nominations And Elections
By a nominating committee. By ballot. By mail. By petition. Nominations By The Chair. This method is used whenever the ...<|separator|>
[10]
[PDF] THE NOMINATION AND APPOINTMENT PROCESS
Representatives nominate from applicants domiciled in their congressional districts (as constituted at the time of their election). Applicants may apply for and ...
[11]
Nominating Candidates | Presidential Elections and Voting in U.S. ...
However, the Constitution says nothing about how to nominate a candidate to run for president. Currently, candidates go through a series of state primary ...
[12]
nomination, n. meanings, etymology and more
The earliest known use of the noun nomination is in the Middle English period (1150—1500). OED's earliest evidence for nomination is from before 1425, ...
[13]
nomination noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes
Word Originlate Middle English: from Latin nominatio(n-), from the verb nominare, from nomen, nomin- 'a name'. Join us. Join our community to access the latest ...
[14]
nominate, adj. & n. meanings, etymology and more
The earliest known use of the word nominate is in the Middle English period (1150—1500). OED's earliest evidence for nominate is from around 1450, ...
[15]
[PDF] Nomination Processes and Policy Outcomes - Stanford University
We provide a set of new models of three different processes by which political parties nominate candidates for a general election: nominations by party ...
[16]
Presidential primaries and caucuses | USAGov
Aug 22, 2024 · Most states hold primaries 6-9 months before a presidential election. Primary voters choose their preferred candidate anonymously by casting ...
[17]
Getting Nominated and Campaigning for Office - CliffsNotes
A primary is an election in which voters choose the parties' candidates for the general election. There are two types of primaries. In a closed primary, only a ...
[18]
[PDF] Presidential Nominations - Moritz College of Law
The candidate who wins a majority of convention delegates through these primary elections becomes the party's nominee. Elected party figures no longer have any.Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[19]
[PDF] Candidate nomination procedures and political selection - STICERD
The empirical strategy exploits a novel panel data of Latin American parties with information on the procedures to nominate presidential candidates, electoral ...
[20]
About Nominations by the U.S. President - Congress.gov
Nomination Numbering. The Executive Clerk assigns each nomination a number starting with the prefix PN (Presidential Nomination) and followed by a sequence ...
[21]
Selection by Lot and Democracy: New Trend, Ancient Model
Discover the roots and ideology of sortition in Classical Athens and its functional success. Explore the complexities and propose a political compromise for ...
[22]
https://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/ostracism-selection-and-de-selection-in-ancient-greece/
[23]
Democracy without political parties: the case of ancient Athens
May 30, 2019 · Those interested in holding public posts had no incentive to receive nomination by political parties, for affiliation to a party could not ...Missing: civilizations | Show results with:civilizations
[24]
Election To The Offices Of The Magistrates, The Entry To The Senate
The usual entrance to the Senate was through the magistracies of the city. Initially this was conferred on the higher magistrates, Consul and Praetor.
[25]
ELECTIONS AND ELECTIONEERING IN ANCIENT GREECE - jstor
withered away and the busy political and legal life at Athens easily forgot all that was religious about the lot. The essence of the constitution in Athens was ...
[26]
How did elections in the Roman Republic work? : r/ancientrome
Oct 20, 2024 · Dictators were nominated by a serving Consul and approved by the Senate. A Dictator would then appoint a Master of Horse to serve as a deputy.How were people nominated to be candidates for the magistrate and ...r/AskHistorians on Reddit: In the time of the Roman Republic, who ...More results from www.reddit.com
[27]
Election (Part IV) - Paths to Kingship in Medieval Latin Europe, c ...
Sep 24, 2021 · Despite his corpse-snatching antics, even Henry II, Thietmar of Merseburg claimed, was elected unanimously,Footnote and 'according to the divine ...
[28]
“Stop the Steal!”: Challenging an election, medieval style
Jul 24, 2022 · The most famous elections were of new popes. A papal election is an episcopal election since the pope is the bishop of Rome. It would be good to ...
[29]
The Early History of Approval Voting - The Center for Election Science
Jul 1, 2024 · Venice in the Middle Ages - Guarding Against Two Party Control. At the start of the 13th century, Venice stood out in Europe as a republic in a ...
[30]
[PDF] Strategy and Manipulation in Medieval Elections
Abstract. When developing electoral protocols, desiderata include a system which is transparent, non-manipulable, honest, and not open to strategizing.
[31]
The Nineteenth Century | Nominating Candidates | Presidential ...
Why did political party conventions replace Congressional nominations? The absence of guidance from the Constitution about how to nominate a candidate for the ...
[32]
Caucus | Primaries, Nomination & Delegates - Britannica
Oct 13, 2025 · The earliest method for nominating candidates was the caucus, which was adopted in colonial times for local offices and continued into the 19th ...Missing: development | Show results with:development<|control11|><|separator|>
[33]
History of General Elections: the 1800s | LSE Library
The 1800s saw three Reform Acts (1832, 1867, 1884) extend voting rights, but there was a way to go before universal suffrage.
[34]
4: The Politics of the Nineteenth Century - Humanities LibreTexts
Jul 14, 2023 · Nineteenth-century European politics can be seen as a series of struggles and compromises between different political ideologies and their corresponding ...
[35]
Candidate Selection within Political Parties - ACE
Candidate selection is the process by which political parties decide who will be on the ballot paper as their recommended candidate(s).
[36]
Brief State Primary Election Types
The manner in which party primary elections are conducted varies widely from state to state. Primaries can be categorized as either closed, partially closed ...
[37]
Primaries vs. Caucuses: How Presidential Nominees Are Chosen
Feb 22, 2024 · Learn the difference between primaries and caucuses, and the different types of each, with HeinOnline's Voting Rights & Election Law!
[38]
How Political Conventions Began—And Changed - History.com
Aug 13, 2020 · In the 19th century there were no primaries—candidates were selected during each party's convention.
[39]
[PDF] Running for Elective Office in New York State
The current political parties are the. Democratic, Republican, Conservative and Working Families parties. ... (independent nominating petitions for village ...
[40]
Petition Information - New York State Board of Elections
Persons wishing to run for elective office may be nominated either by a political party or through the filing of an independent nominating petition.
[41]
[PDF] Choosing Presidential Candidates - Brookings Institution
They include the alteration of rules governing who is eligible to participate in caucuses and primaries, changes in how votes are translated into delegates, the ...
[42]
Primary election types by state - Ballotpedia
Sep 10, 2025 · In partisan primaries, voters choose the candidates they prefer for a political party to nominate for the general election. Laws governing ...Semi-closed primary · Open primary · Closed primary
[43]
National conventions | USAGov
Oct 2, 2024 · What happens at a national political convention? To become the presidential nominee, a candidate typically has to win a majority of delegates.Missing: public | Show results with:public
[44]
The Constitution and the cabinet nomination process
Feb 2, 2017 · The Appointments Clause allows the President to make nominations for appointed positions like cabinet officers, but the Senate controls the process.
[45]
About Executive Nominations | Historical Overview - Senate.gov
The overwhelming majority of cabinet nominations have been confirmed quickly with little debate and often with simple voice votes.
[46]
The Confirmation Process for Presidential Appointees
First, the White House selects a prospective appointee and sends a formal nomination to the Senate. Second, the Senate determines whether to confirm the ...
[47]
[PDF] PRESIDENTIALLY APPOINTED POSITIONS
A president is responsible for about 4,000 political appointments, 1,200 of which require senate confirmation. This document provides a breakdown of the number ...
[48]
Senate Consideration of Presidential Nominations: Committee and ...
Oct 1, 2025 · The executive clerk then arranges for the nomination to be printed in the Congressional Record and placed on the Executive Calendar. If a report ...
[49]
FAQs: Federal Judges - United States Courts
Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate, ...
[50]
Nomination Process - United States Courts
Federal judges are appointed under Article III of the Constitution by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate.
[51]
About Judicial Nominations | Historical Overview - Senate.gov
Beginning in 1917, the Judiciary Committee instituted the "blue slip" process. The committee asked home-state senators to register their objection or approval ...
[52]
Federal judicial appointments by president - Ballotpedia
Presidents have made an average of 17.3 judicial appointments through October 1 of their first year in office. President Bill Clinton (D) made the most ...
[53]
The Executive Role in the Appointment of Federal Judges
All three branches of the federal government intersect in the judicial nomination and confirmation process, exemplifying the system of checks and balances ...
[54]
The Appointment Process for U.S. Circuit and District Court ...
The Judiciary Committee's processing of the nomination typically consists of three phases—a pre-hearing phase, the holding of a hearing on the nomination, and ...Court Vacancies Create Need... · Identifying District Court... · Reaching a Vote on...
[55]
Voters need help: How party insiders can make presidential ...
Jan 31, 2020 · Raymond La Raja and Jonathan Rauch argue this is a result of the declining role of party insiders in the nomination process and call for the reversal of that ...Missing: criticisms | Show results with:criticisms<|separator|>
[56]
The Presidential Primary Problem, Explained | Unite America
Jan 12, 2024 · Too often, once the general election rolls around, many voters are dissatisfied with their choices and resign themselves to voting for “the ...
[57]
How Divisive Primaries Hurt Parties: Evidence from Near-Runoffs in ...
In many democracies, parties use primary elections to nominate candidates. Primaries may help select quality candidates, but they can expose flaws and ...
[58]
Political Appointees to the Federal Bureaucracy
Feb 20, 2024 · The problem stems from the large number of appointed positions, many regularly vacant because of political dysfunction and others filled with unqualified ...
[59]
The Problem of Vacancies and Confirmation Delays - Miller Center
Oct 19, 2023 · In only 20 years, the average number of days from nomination to confirmation has nearly doubled during a president's first 2 years, from 80 ...
[60]
Organization, Meetings, and Legal Rights of Assemblies.
A is elected chairman. He will please take the chair." If the motion is lost he announces that fact, and calls for the nomination of some one else for chairman, ...
[61]
[PDF] Roberts-Rules-for-Nominating-and-Electing-Officers.pdf
Nominations are made from the floor, no second needed. If only one nominee, the chair declares election. If contested, a roll call election is held.
[62]
Robert's Rules Of Order Election Of Officers Explained
Duties of the Nomination Committee. The primary function of a nominating committee is to identify the most suitable candidate for each position. The bylaws must ...
[63]
Robert's Rules for Nominations from the Floor - Dummies
Aug 10, 2016 · It's used in the vast majority of situations when members elect their officers at a meeting. Even if a nominating committee is in place, under ...<|separator|>
[64]
Quorum Nominations Elections Bylaws Constitution
Full text of the 1915 (Fourth) Edition of Robert's Rules of Order, with index and keyword search, lesson outlines and Plan for Study of Parliamentary Law.
[65]
What every nonprofit nominating committee member needs to know
Aug 8, 2024 · Nominating committees will usually ask questions of board members about their skills, talents, attendance, personal giving and willingness to ...
[66]
7 Ideas to Build a Healthy Board Nominating Process - Blue Avocado
Jul 18, 2022 · Nonprofit executives and staff sometimes complain about their boards of directors. These 7 steps can help you build a healthy board.
[67]
Board Recruitment - Responsibilities, Electing and Training
Learn how to recruit, select, and orient board members with step-by-step guidance from BoardSource's recruitment resources.
[68]
Board Recruitment in 7 Steps - Propel Nonprofits
Mar 21, 2023 · Recruiting and onboarding new board members is an ongoing governance responsibility for board members of nonprofit organizations. Existing board ...
[69]
Nomination Process - NAI - National Academy of Inventors
Nominations must be submitted prior to July 31 at midnight. Nominees will be notified if they have been elected to Fellow status in December of each year.
[70]
Nomination process | UNESCO
Sep 1, 2025 · Nomination by non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In order to submit a nomination, the NGO must maintain an official partnership with UNESCO.
[71]
Sample Board Nomination Form | Parent Booster USA
Nominating board members is an important part of the nonprofit process. Our sample form helps make this easy.Missing: procedures | Show results with:procedures
[72]
Finding the Right Board Members for your Nonprofit
Some nonprofits find that asking potential board candidates to first serve on a committee or task force, or volunteer for the nonprofit in another way, is a ...
[73]
https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/
[74]
Nomination and selection of Nobel Peace Prize laureates
A nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize may be submitted by any person who meets the nomination criteria. A letter of invitation to submit is not required.
[75]
FAQ - Frequently asked questions - NobelPrize.org
In order to become a Nobel Prize laureate you must first be nominated for a prize by an eligible nominator. Self-nomination is not allowed. Except for the Nobel ...Nomination and selection · Nobel Prize in Literature · Physics prize
[76]
The nomination process - Nobel Peace Prize
The nomination process is an eight-month screening and decision-making process.
[77]
Administration of the Prizes - The Pulitzer Prizes
Each jury is required to offer three nominations but in no order of preference, although the jury chair in a report accompanying the submission can broadly ...
[78]
Rules & Eligibility | Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
The Oscars have rules for Best Picture, Animated, Documentary, International, Live Action Short, Music, Visual Effects, and Writing (Adapted & Original) ...
[79]
Who chooses Oscar winners? All about the Academy's voting process
Mar 1, 2025 · In the first round, members vote by secret ballot to create a shortlist of 15 nominees from the eligible submissions. Then, members vote again ...
[80]
The nomination and decision process - Kungl. Vetenskapsakademien
In September, the committees send invitations for proposals for Nobel Prize nominees for the following year. The invitations are sent to thousands of specially ...
[81]
Frequently Asked Questions - The Pulitzer Prizes
The Pulitzer Prize Board generally selects the Pulitzer Prize winners from the three nominated finalists in each category. The names of nominated finalists have ...
[82]
How are Oscars winners decided? Here's how the voting process ...
Mar 12, 2023 · Voters order the nominees by preference; if one movie comes away with more than 50% of the first-place votes in the first round, that's the ...
[83]
Nobel Prizes 2024: How do nominations work? - Al Jazeera
Oct 7, 2024 · The Nobel Committee maintains lists of who can qualify as a nominator for each of the six prizes. Thousands of people falling under these ...
[84]
Nomination and selection of medicine laureates - NobelPrize.org
Nominations are by invitation only. The Nobel Assembly selects laureates based on the Nobel Committee's recommendations, for major discoveries, not lifetime ...
[85]
Nomination and selection of economic sciences laureates
Nominations are by invitation only. The Royal Swedish Academy selects laureates from candidates recommended by the Economic Sciences Prize Committee. The final ...
[86]
Nomination and selection of literature laureates - NobelPrize.org
Qualified persons nominate; the Nobel Committee evaluates, the Swedish Academy selects, and the laureate is chosen in October with a majority vote.
[87]
FAQ - Awards Submissions - Oscars.org
To submit a film for Academy Awards consideration, you will first need to register. Select the Register menu item in the Account menu. Fill out the registration ...
[88]
The Recording Academy GRAMMY Awards Voting Process
The process begins with members and record companies submitting entries, which are then screened for eligibility and category placement.
[89]
Heisman Balloting: How it works
Nov 27, 2018 · Voters can select three players on their ballot. A first place vote allots 3 points to the player selected, second place gets 2 points and third place gets 1 ...
[90]
Who votes for Heisman Trophy? How award finalists ... - USA Today
Dec 14, 2024 · The voting for the Heisman Trophy, presented by the Heisman Trophy Trust, consists of 928 votes: 145 media votes from each of the six voting regions, totaling ...
[91]
BBWAA ELECTION RULES - Baseball Hall of Fame
Those Hall of Fame eligible voters are required to complete a registration form and sign a code of conduct.
[92]
PATH TO THE HALL OF FAME
The BBWAA has a Screening Committee that prepares a ballot of eligible candidates who received a vote on a minimum of five percent (5%) of the ballots cast in ...
[93]
Research prizes are opaque and rife with bias — it's time to shake ...
Dec 19, 2023 · Scientific prizes are plagued by opaque and seemingly biased selection criteria. This needs to change. Done right, such awards could provide an opportunity to ...Missing: nominations | Show results with:nominations
[94]
Male applicants are more likely to be awarded fellowships than ...
Oct 25, 2023 · Results show that the success rates are consistently higher for male applicants than for female applicants among five different fellowship categories.
[95]
Common Biases in Scholarship Selection Processes
Halo Effect or Harshness/Horn Effect. Occurs when reviewers evaluate an applicant positively (halo) or negatively (horn) based on a single characteristic. For ...
[96]
Nobel Prizes have a diversity problem even worse than the scientific ...
Sep 29, 2020 · Only 3% of the science awardees have been women and zero of the 617 science laureates have been Black. The vast majority of those now-famous role model ...Missing: integrity | Show results with:integrity<|separator|>
[97]
Controversies in Selecting Nobel Laureates: An Historical ...
A few were errors of omission (e.g. Tolstoy, Tesla, Edison, Best, Gandhi, Franklin), some errors of commission (e.g. Fibiger, Moniz); but, given the complexity ...Missing: integrity | Show results with:integrity
[98]
OSCAR FILMS; 75 Years of Bribes, Lies and Overkill
Mar 9, 2003 · Protests over this blatant bribery led to the opening of balloting to all academy members; voters could still be bought off, but it would take a ...
[99]
Hollywood loves #diversity — except when it comes to Israel and Jews
when all 20 Oscars acting nominations ... corruption scandals, and “No Other Land” details the destruction of ...
[100]
[PDF] Avoiding Implicit Bias: Guidelines for ASA Selection of ASA ...
The following guidelines may help selection committees avoid implicit bias. Composing committees and cultivating nominees. • Appoint diverse selection ...
[101]
Managing internal nomination and peer review processes to reduce ...
This guidance on strategies to reduce bias in peer review, with a focus on internal award nominations and funding programs.
[102]
The Board Nomination Process for Board Members | BoardEffect
Apr 7, 2016 · Board members are typically nominated by a nominating committee, but they can also be nominated by ballot, or from the floor.
[103]
Selecting Board Members: Guidelines for an Effective Nominating ...
Five basic steps · Select a nominating committee · Specify candidate qualifications · Identify potential candidates · Screen, select, and recommend candidates ...
[104]
[PDF] NOMINATING A CORPORATE DIRECTOR
The procedural requirements for nominating board candidates are usually spelled out in a company's bylaws and are often summarized in the proxy statement for ...
[105]
Procedures by Which Shareholders May Submit Nominees for Director
Shareholder recommendations should be submitted to the Company's Corporate Secretary in writing no later than the date specified in the Company's bylaws by ...<|separator|>
[106]
Shareholder Nominations for Director
The Nominating and. Corporate Governance Committee seeks directors who have demonstrated an ethical and successful career. This may include experience as a ...
[107]
The Universal Proxy: New Rules & Perspectives - Bloomberg Law
Nomination Notice Deadlines: Shareholders intending to nominate directors must provide the names of those nominees to the company at least 60 calendar days ...<|separator|>
[108]
A Qualitative Examination of Board Independence and Formalization
Aug 7, 2025 · We find that there is continuing recognition of CEO influence in the director nomination process, the level of which varies widely by company.Missing: criticisms | Show results with:criticisms<|control11|><|separator|>
[109]
Engaging on director nominations - UN PRI
Jun 19, 2017 · An ineffective nominations process brings with it major risks, including ineffective board members or whole boards that are not fit for purpose.
[110]
The Nomination Committee: Definition, Challenges, Best Practices
Process of nomination by a nominating committee: 8 key steps. The nomination process may be complex. It typically takes three months to nominate a board ...
[111]
[PDF] Nominating/Governance Committee Fundamentals Guide
Develops and recommends to the board a policy regarding the consideration of director candidates recommended by the company's security holders and procedures ...
[112]
[PDF] An Overview of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
Jun 9, 2025 · Helping companies navigate this sometimes conflicting sea of policies, overseeing shareholder engagement and responses to shareholder proposals.
[113]
How to Nominate - NAS - National Academy of Sciences
How to Nominate · A letter from the nominator describing the candidate's work and why he or she should be selected for the award. · Curriculum vitae.<|separator|>
[114]
[PDF] Major Awards Nomination Process Toolkit - Office of Faculty Affairs
Major Award Nominations Schedule. Fall: Identify candidates for nomination. • Look at criteria/info on organization website.
[115]
Nomination & Selection Process - A-State Knowledge Base
A representative from each college will complete an online form to submit their finalists for each award along with a recommendation letter from the department ...
[116]
Effects of homophily and academic reputation in the nomination and ...
Nov 21, 2019 · There is also evidence that nominations are mostly affected by nationalistic homophily. The nomination network is highly modular with respect to ...
[117]
[PDF] The Influence of Unconscious Bias | UC Davis Health
Several research studies have demonstrated that implicit biases and assumptions can affect evaluation and hiring of candidates for academic positions.
[118]
The Black-White Recognition Gap in Award Nominations
We find that white supervisors are less likely to nominate Black officers conditional on work performance. This appears to be driven by supervisor bias.
[119]
How to Nominate - ASME
The first step in making a nomination for a particular honor is to become completely familiar with the requirements to be met by the candidate for the ...
[120]
Election to the Fellowship | Royal Academy of Engineering
Nomination procedure A nomination is largely written by one Fellow, the proposer, who will often work with the nominee to construct the detailed information ...
[121]
The Art of Successful Nominations | AAMC
Sep 23, 2010 · This Leadership Lesson addresses how to put together a stellar nomination packet, how to secure nominations, and how to strengthen letters of support ...
[122]
Gender and racial or ethnic bias differ by course level and context
Dec 23, 2022 · We examine whether a gender bias exists in students' nominations of strong peers across three different remote, introductory physics courses.<|control11|><|separator|>
[123]
Tips for Preparing Award Nominations | TMS
Initiate the nomination process early – Compiling a thorough nomination packet takes time. Begin the process early in the year and be sure to check the deadline ...
[124]
Supreme Court Nominations (1789-Present) - Senate.gov
Since the Supreme Court was established in 1789, presidents have submitted 165 nominations for the Court, including those for chief justice.Missing: legal | Show results with:legal
[125]
Nomination Process FAQ - Alliance for Justice
from vacancy to ...
[126]
Nominations to the Court | Research Starters - EBSCO
Most roll-call votes result in approval, but twenty-seven nominations have failed since 1789. Almost half of these were rejected outright by a Senate vote, and ...<|separator|>
[127]
[PDF] THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS PROCESS
For U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. District Court nominees, Senators establish processes to select potential nominees for vacancies in their states.Missing: United | Show results with:United
[128]
Appointing Bishops | USCCB
IntroductionThe ultimate decision in appointing bishops rests with the pope, and he is free to select anyone he chooses. But how does he know whom to select ...
[129]
Bishop selection process is thorough and strictly confidential
Nov 30, 2012 · The process of gathering evaluations of potential bishops and assembling a list of three recommendations is not specifically laid out in the Code of Canon Law.
[130]
How do religions choose their leaders? What to know as Catholics ...
May 7, 2025 · In practice, the selection is led by the Crown Nominations Commission, made up of clergy and laypeople.
[131]
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Nomination - New Advent
Nomination is defined as the designation of a person for an ecclesiastical benefice or office made by the competent civil authority.
[132]
Strengths and weaknesses of the nominating process - Google Sites
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the presidential nomination process? The system is open to the public and actively encourages a much wider voter ...
[133]
Effects of homophily and academic reputation in the nomination and ...
Nov 21, 2019 · We quantify the role of homophily, academic reputation of nominators and their prestige neighborhood, showing that nominees endorsed by central actors.
[134]
Seniority-Based Nominations and Political Careers
Sep 14, 2020 · This paper investigates party use of seniority systems to allocate nominations for elected and appointed offices.<|separator|>
[135]
[PDF] Biased Party Nominations as a Source of Women's Electoral ...
Jun 3, 2024 · Despite salient public debates about the “electability” of women, empirical evidence for gender discrimination by voters is scant. In the ...
[136]
Gender bias in academia: a lifetime problem that needs solutions
Gender disparity is even more dramatic for more prestigious awards. For instance, women represent only 21% of Kavli Prize winners, 14% of recipients for the ...
[137]
Study finds female academics less likely to win prizes, even when ...
Nov 21, 2023 · A new study shows that female academics are significantly underrepresented in winning academic prizes and having awards named after them.Missing: studies | Show results with:studies
[138]
One reason men often sweep the Nobels: few women nominees
Oct 12, 2021 · Just 13% of the nominees for the physiology or medicine prize and 7% to 8% for the chemistry prize are women.Missing: evidence | Show results with:evidence
[139]
Increasing Nominations Significantly Increased Institutional Awards ...
We deployed and evaluated a pilot award nomination intervention aiming to increase the proportion of deserving female award recipients.
[140]
The career impact of winning an external work-related award
We examine the career impact of national awards bestowed on individuals in business. Winners experienced no changes to career trajectory or objective career ...
[141]
[PDF] The Effect of Early-Career Recognition on the Subsequent Success
We developed four hypotheses addressing the effect of early recognition. (i.e., nomination for Oscar award) on different success measures of performing artists, ...
[142]
[PDF] The Demotivating Effect (and Unintended Message) of Awards
Another study found that an attendance award had short-term positive effects on low-attending employees, but the extrinsic reward from the program crowded out ...
[143]
Inequity Analysis in Faculty Recognition Awards at a School of ... - NIH
The literature suggests inequities in recognition awards for women and racial/ethnic underrepresented minority faculty.
[144]
Peer Effects in the Decision to Apply for a Professional Excellence ...
We document that the success of an applicant increases her school colleagues' application rate to the program by almost 75 percent. The impact is higher for ...
[145]
(PDF) Effects of homophily and academic reputation in the ...
We quantify the role of homophily, academic reputation of nominators and their prestige neighborhood, showing that nominees endorsed by central actors.