Editorial: Primaries needing sanity

Monday, May 8, 2000 | 8:55 a.m.

The current presidential nominating system is a mess. The Democratic and Republican nominees already are determined before the nation really even starts paying attention. In fact, more than half the states had not yet held their primaries this year when Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore had effectively secured their party's nominations on Super Tuesday, March 7.

That is why it is so encouraging that a commission appointed by the Republican National Committee has offered a plan that would restore some rationality to this process starting in 2004. In a bid to prevent the existing leapfrogging by states, which has seen many of them in recent years move up their primary dates so as not to be left behind, the national party would set the election dates. Under this proposal, which still would have to be approved by Republicans at their national convention this summer, the state primaries would be clustered into four groups, with the first primaries beginning in March and the last contests held in June.

And in an effort to give more voters a say in who the party nominee will be, the proposal would have the smallest states hold their primaries in March, followed by somewhat larger states in April, medium-sized states in May and the largest states in June. Not only is it hoped that this change would keep the race competitive longer, since the nomination would be almost impossible to wrap up mathematically until June, it also gives smaller states a greater role. A less-populated state such as Nevada, which in the past has held its presidential nominating caucuses well after the nominations have been sewn up, would gain since it would be in the second group of states to hold its caucuses.

This plan likely will receive opposition from larger states such as California, which recently moved up its primary earlier in the year so it would be more of a factor in presidential politics, but this is a proposal that should be given serious consideration. Another plan, which has been advanced by state election officials, would set up a regional primary system instead. No one should believe that either alternative would be a panacea, removing all of the current ills in presidential politics. Still, both options are better than the current chaos. Some Democratic officials reportedly were skeptical, even cool, to the Republican proposal, but Democrats should join their counterparts in devising a better way to nominate those who will occupy the White House.