Primary Care

By Thomas Gangale
28 September 2005

Throughout all of history's republics, various means have been contrived to advantage a few over the many: sometimes by geography, sometimes by ethnicity, sometimes by theology; by tests of property, loyalty, or literacy.

In ancient Rome, for instance, voting was conducted by tribes: one tribe, one vote. The catch was that the upper classes were apportioned many small tribes, while the lower classes were aggregated into a few large tribes. In our present republic, we have many low-population states who dominate the Senate to the detriment of the few populous states: one state, two votes. Since each state has two electoral votes in addition to those apportioned by population, this inequity colors our method of electing presidents as well.

Another device that was used in ancient Rome to extend the political power of the economically privileged was that the tribes voted in a prescribed order, the tribes of the upper classes always voting before those of the lower classes. Quite often, enough tribal votes were counted to elect a candidate before the lower classes voted, thus they were effectively disenfranchised. Similarly, in the current presidential primary system, certain states are guaranteed the privilege of voting before all others. When Howard Dean suspended his campaign in February 2004, only one-fifth of the American electorate had spoken. Just as during the civil rights era, it was said that "justice delayed is justice denied," a vote delayed is a vote denied.

This is a civil rights issue and a voting rights issue, yet it goes almost entirely unaddressed in public discourse. It is an issue that crosses boundaries of race, region, and religion, and of political persuasion, economic class, and gender. The current system enables an injustice that is so pervasive, and has grown worse by imperceptible increments over so many decades, that most of us are blind to it. It is like the object that fades from view as one stares at it steadily, yet the object is still there. Similarly, injustice persists in the absence of our perception of it. Indeed, it flourishes ominously.

The Democratic National Committee's 2005 Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling recommended only small changes to the 2008 presidential primary calendar, "minor surgery" in the words of DNC chair Howard Dean, MD. If his metaphor was apt, it was only because the cancer was inoperable, and in the past few months we have seen it metastasize. The time is long past when an ounce of prevention might have been effective. The commission's tragic misdiagnosis will doom the body politic to suffer needlessly for a few more years.

So now, the only hope of a cure is in a full protocol of chemotherapy. It will not be easy, and it will not be pleasant, but it is imperative to our health and survival as a republic. Several systemic solutions have been discussed, some in scholarly journals, others only in the popular press. What is needed is for a panel of specialists in electoral reform to consult on this case, separate science from folk medicine and patent elixirs, and give us their prescription for the best course of treatment. Furthermore, so that we, the patients, can give our informed consent, they must disclose the probabilities of potential side effects and strategies for relieving them.

Then, let America take its medicine, and let us get well.