Revamp Party Primaries

After almost a year of campaigning, voters will go to the polls over the next few months to choose the two men who will represent the Democratic and Republican parties in the November presidential election. Presidential primaries are an entrenched political institution in America--only a few states still hold party caucuses--but their origins are relatively young. State primaries came into wide usage in this century, and "Super Tuesday," the single day in March in which party nominations are lost and won, is a phenomenon of the last 12 years.

Primaries were originally introduced to take power back from party leaders in state and local conventions and put it back in the hands of voters. But the primary system, as it currently works, has many problems of its own.

Because each state chooses the date for its primaries, a few states and groups of states have disproportionate sway over the selection of nominees. New Hampshire, which clings fiercely to the first primary date and will go to the polls Feb. 1 this year, has a wildly disproportionate influence on national politics. Many candidates spent the better part of 1999 funneling their campaign funding and energy into New Hampshire; a poor showing in the Granite State can doom a campaign.

New Hampshire has a population of just over 1,000,000 and is 98 percent white. That the state is a kingmaker for a nation of 274,000,000 is outrageous.

Furthermore, because the actual presidential election is so far away, voter turnout is extraordinarily low for primaries. As a result, a particularly active or vocal minority can sway party primaries very easily. Voters in the primary elections tend to be entrenched party members, and candidates routinely campaign toward the extremes and special interests of specific states during the primaries to capture party votes, then move back to the middle for the national election. As a result, there is no motivation for candidates to campaign either consistently or with the interest of the whole nation in mind as they go state to state pandering to the interests of the party members and special interests of each state.

To return primary politics to the mainstream, voter turnout must increase. One way to get out the vote would be to reduce the barriers for working voters. A law providing for a several-hour "election leave" modeled on family leave, or incentives to employers to offer such time off, could allow workers to leave their jobs and participate in primaries as well as the general election.

To reduce the disproportionate significance of states, two possibilities present themselves: first, setting up a loggical order for the primaries, and second, condensing the whole process.

In the first solution, state primaries could be arranged on a rotating basis, or perhaps in descending order of voter turnout in the previous election. This would prevent domination of the political process by any particular state or states.

But even this solution would result in a few states receiving disproportionate attention. Another possibility is to group primaries on several dates so that no single state or group of states will receive disproportionate attention.

The main drawback to this approach is that by having so many states' primaries on the same date, candidates would be unable to campaign state to state and city to city. Consequently, they would be forced to rely heavily on mass-media advertising, giving an even greater advantage to those candidates with the largest war chest and turning elections into fundraising battles rather than old-fashioned stump-debates. For a system of group primaries to work, there would have to be substanial campaign finance reform that would allow legitimate candidates free air time to counter their financial advantage.

If such a system were to be adopted, debates would no longer be small and regional, but national, and topics would be nationally relevant--which is what the president should be focused on. The president should not be pandering to local concerns.

Either of these solutions would make the primary system more nationally relevant and representative. The parties and state legislatures must begin to give serious consideration to such reforms. American democracy would be the better for it.