This paper used computer simulation to test the effectiveness of nine different presidential selection methods in generating executive-legislative conflict. Interest group ratings from the 101st Congress are used to simulate presidential nominees selected under both partisan and non-partisan methods. Three measures of ideological conflict for liberalism, conservatism, and the average ideological difference of the two are calculated between the simulated presidents and each member of Congress, and then averaged across all members of Congress. Through sensitivity analysis, the current method of selection which sequences partisan primaries in small states first in the process is found to result in the most executive-legislative conflict of all the methods examined. Nonpartisan methods generally result in less conflict than their partisan counterparts, although reductions in conflict may be achieved with the adoption of certain partisan selection options
