Editorial: Voters deserve their say

Tuesday, March 14, 2000 | 9:09 a.m.

There was both uplifting and dispiriting news regarding voter participation in this year's presidential nominating process, which effectively ended last week after Republican George W. Bush and Democratic Vice President Al Gore clinched their party's nominations.

On the positive side, according to an analysis by the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, Republican John McCain's insurgency campaign created a record turnout in 12 of the 18 Republican primary contests held through last Tuesday. The nonpartisan research group found that 13.6 percent of voting-age Americans turned out in Republican primaries, which was 4.3 percentage points higher than in 1996. The Democrats, though, didn't generate the same level of enthusiasm. Just 10.1 percent of the voting-age population turned out in Democratic primaries, registering their second lowest turnout in 40 years.

Even more disconcerting was the fact that the parties' presidential nominees were decided before more than half of the states, including Nevada, had yet to hold either their primaries or caucuses. Voters in subsequent primaries, then, naturally were disappointed that they didn't have a voice. Typical was the reaction in Utah, which held its primary on Friday. "It's like shouting after the game is over," Elaine Broadbent, who voted for Bush, told an Associated Press reporter.

Expect a renewed clamor then by those states that got left behind this time, pushing their legislatures to hold earlier dates for primaries and caucuses in 2004. While this might get these states more attention by presidential hopefuls, front-loading this process damages democracy. Most Americans have yet to develop their opinions about the presidential candidates, despite the fact that the parties already have settled on their nominees. And compressing the presidential campaign into a narrower window in 2004 would give an even greater edge to candidates with large sums of money, who can drown out their lesser-funded challengers.

The states' top election officials have suggested that the states and parties instead adopt a regional primary system, with four regional votes held at least a month apart. In addition, every four years the order would be rotated, preventing one region from receiving preferential treatment by being able to go first. This would restore some rationality to the current chaos that finds states quadrennially trying to play leapfrog over one another.

So who should take action to make this happen? Congress could play a role, but there are questions as to whether it has the authority to dictate nominating rules for the states or political parties. More likely this will have to be settled by the parties and the states working together. Although the next election is four years away, this needs to be addressed immediately -- at least by the GOP. That's because the Republican National Committee's rules require that any changes to its delegate selection process be made at this summer's national convention.

While the states set the dates for primary elections, the parties hold the ultimate power since they determine whether or not they'll recognize the results of these contests at their national conventions. There may not be much incentive for Gore and Bush to cajole their parties into creating a more orderly nominating system -- after all, they both won under the current set of rules -- but they should display leadership and advocate the common sense changes proposed by state election officials. The 2000 primary season was bad enough due to its abbreviation -- the national parties and states shouldn't compound this by creating an even more truncated 2004 primary election.