Canceled Primaries Diminish Democracy

By Thomas Gangale
San Francisco Chronicle
San Francisco, California
6 January 2004

While Americans are working to bring democracy to Iraq, we will have a bit less of it here at home during the coming presidential election: A number of states -- including Colorado, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Utah and Washington -- have canceled their presidential primaries.

This marks a sharp reversal of a 40-year trend in presidential politics. In 1960, there were only 18 presidential primary states; in 2000, primaries were held in 45 jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. This trend away from party caucuses and conventions in favor of more primary elections has opened the political system to more Americans. In earlier times, it was customary for a few of the party faithful to gather in an auditorium to determine the composition of state delegations. The process has evolved to reach out to the electorate as a whole, and to include millions of voters.

But this year finds American democracy in retreat. States claim they cannot afford the millions of dollars it costs to hold presidential primaries. How ironic that at the same time, the federal government is spending billions of dollars to build democracy in Iraq. The idea that Americans cannot afford democracy is profoundly disturbing. What are our values if we consent to be less free just so we can save a few bucks?

In an attempt to justify the decisions to cancel the presidential primaries in these six states, it is pointed out that fewer voters participate in them. This is true; however, the proper response to this problem is more democracy, not less. The reason that fewer people bother to vote in the primaries is that fewer people believe that their vote makes a difference. Unfortunately, they are right. By early December, political pundits were already declaring Howard Dean the de facto nominee of the Democratic Party.

On what basis did they make such a pronouncement? Did they count the votes? Of course not. The Iowa caucuses were still weeks in the future, and the New Hampshire primary after that. No, they made this prediction by counting the money. Dean has a commanding lead in fund raising; ergo he is the presumptive nominee. According to a 2000 report from the Republican National Committee, in every presidential campaign since 1980 and in both parties, the nominee was the candidate who had raised the most money by Dec. 31 of the year before the general election. The primaries and caucuses merely rubber-stamp the decision already determined by money. Money matters; people's votes do not. This is not democracy.

Yet, while money continues to determine the outcome of the primaries, states are now claiming that there is not enough money to hold the primaries in the first place. Clearly, millions of dollars are available to the electoral process; it is simply a matter of priorities, and of re-engineering the system so that it works better for everyone.

The biggest problem with the system is the front-loaded schedule. By March 15, more than 70 percent of the delegates to the national party conventions will be selected. In order to successfully compete in all of these individual state contests simultaneously, candidates must raise vast sums of money up front, well before these elections and caucuses are held.

The campaign schedule was far more gradual in the 1960s and throughout most of the 1980s. This allowed poorly funded campaigns to get their messages out in small venues via door-to-door politicking. Those who scored early victories in a few states were then able to attract the contributions that allowed them to compete in later primaries. This process fostered more competitive campaigns. It was politics on the installment plan, and it gave more candidates meaningful access to the political system.

In contrast, running for president today is like paying cash to buy a house. Most Americans would be homeless in such a system, so it should come as no surprise that most presidential candidates are left out in the cold, with no chance of winning.

Relaxing the primary schedule will loosen the grip of money on the electoral system and return political power to the voters. Canceling primaries only takes power from the voters. Reforming the presidential nomination process will require the voters who are disenfranchised by the system to speak up by writing to the national committees of their respective parties. It also falls to the presidential candidates who are forced to campaign for dollars rather than for votes; this year's candidates must urge the national party chairmen to reform the rules of the nomination process. It is in the interests of Democrats, Republicans and independents to make this happen. If we do not solve the problem in this presidential election year, we will be stuck with the same mess -- and possibly worse -- in 2008.

This article appeared on page A - 21 of the San Francisco Chronicle