Even two-thirds of states have yet to vote, the Democratic race
for president may soon be over. Since his surprise win in Iowa, the
rapid crunch of primaries has made Massachusetts Senator John
Kerry's momentum nearly unstoppable.
But before turning to the general election we should reflect on
whether the nominating process is fair, inclusive and effective.
Reform is not far-fetched. In 2000 Republicans nearly overhauled
their primary schedule, and Democrats plan a major review by
2006.
Some aspects of the current system work. There is a meaningful
range of views that showcase real diversity of opinion, in sharp
contrast to our many elections that feature lopsided runaways or
cagey candidates muddying their positions. The intense focus on Iowa
and New Hampshire encourages candidates to have sustained contact
with ordinary voters rather than wage campaigns solely from
television studios. And potential nominees must withstand intense
scrutiny and challenges that test their mettle.
But we can do better. Here's our wish list of reforms for
future primaries:
* Rotate opening states: Iowa and New Hampshire should not be
the sole focus of candidates' grassroots campaigning. Different
states have different interests and concerns, particularly ones with
bigger cities and more racial diversity. We should rotate the first
states by holding a lottery among a pool of small and mid-size
states.
* Start later: Some misguided party leaders may want an early
nominee, but hardly anyone else yearns for a nine-month general
election campaign of sniping and personal attacks. Primaries should
run from March to June.
* An inclusive schedule: Republicans in 2000 nearly adopted the
"Delaware plan" that would give more states and their voters a
meaningful role. After the opening primaries, small states would
vote in a "mini Super Tuesday," followed by a break that would allow
voters to give frontrunners a second look. Bigger states would then
vote, followed by more breaks, until finally the biggest states
would vote in a decisive final round.
* Require full representation: In Democratic primaries and
caucuses,
candidates win a fair share of convention delegates through
full representation, where winning 25 percent of the vote earns at
least 25 percent of delegates. Republicans mostly use
winner-take-all primaries, where the first-place finisher receives
all delegates even if winning far less than a majority.
Winner-take-all distorts results and can allow an unrepresentative
candidate to win big when the opposition vote is split among several
candidates. Both parties should require full representation and
consider lowering the 15% threshold of support now necessary for
Democrats to win delegates.
* Adopt Iowa's "second choice" system: The Iowa caucuses
showcase a more representative method by allowing voters the chance
to cast alternate choices in case their first choice can't win
delegates. Every
participant ultimately elects a delegate, and candidates have
incentives to reach out to supporters of other candidates. In
contrast, more than a quarter of voters in the eight primaries and
caucuses after Iowa supported candidates who failed to reach the 15
percent necessary to win delegates, and absentee voters lost out if
their mail ballot's first choice dropped out before their state's
primary. A better way is to allow voters to rank candidates so
that if their first choice falls short, their runoff rankings
can help more viable candidates, similar to instant runoff
voting.
* Remember the youth: While their turnout remains low, young
voters are
participating in bigger numbers in 2004. New Hampshire's set of
rules helps explain why. Voters can people register on the day of
the primary and still vote in the primary if registered as an
independent, and youth-oriented debates were spotlighted. Young
people are more likely to be unregistered, are disproportionately
registered as independents and are more motivated when candidates
address their concerns.
* Fix the financing: When most leading candidates opt out of
public financing, the system is broken. We should provide a
four-to-one public match for small donations and give participating
candidates additional funds when opponents opt out.
We deserve elections where more of us can make a difference,
where choices are meaningful, and where our votes count. Parties can
adopt most of these changes on their own without waiting for
Congress to pass new legislation. Let's push for reform before
2008.
ABOUT THE WRITERS
Rob Richie is executive director of the Center for Voting and
Democracy,
www.fairvote.org. Steven Hill
is the Center's senior analyst and author of "Fixing Elections: The
Failure of Americas Winner Take All Politics,"
www.FixingElections.com. Readers may
write to them at. The Center for Voting & Democracy, 6930
Carroll Avenue, Suite 610, Takoma Park, Md. 20912.
