Most states have yet to vote, but the Democratic race for
president is effectively over unless John Kerry makes a colossal
blunder. The rushed primary schedule and Senator Kerry's winning
aura in the wake of the Iowa caucuses gives him nearly unstoppable
momentum.
Some party leaders are pleased with a quick win that allows them
to focus on fundraising for November. But Kerry hasn't faced the
intense scrutiny he'll get from the Bush campaign, and most states
won't have competitive primaries that draw voter interest.
The nominating process should be fairer and more inclusive and
effective. Reform is hardly far-fetched: Republicans nearly
overhauled their primary schedule in 2000, and Democrats plan a
major review by 2006.
Reform should enhance what already works. In contrast to most
general elections, contested presidential primaries offer a
meaningful range of views with real diversity of opinion. The
intense focus on Iowa and New Hampshire encourages candidates to
have sustained contact with ordinary voters rather than wage
campaigns solely from TV studios. Potential nominees must withstand
challenges that test their mettle.
But parties could strengthen themselves - and democracy itself -
with reforms like these:
Rotate opening states: A lottery among small and mid-size
states should determine the first to hold primaries. Iowa and New
Hampshire should not be the sole focus of candidates' grass-roots
campaigning. Different states have different concerns, particularly
those with bigger cities and more racial diversity.
An inclusive, sensible schedule: To avoid a nine-month
general election campaign of sniping and personal attacks, primaries
should return to running from March to June. After the opening
primaries, small states would vote in a "mini Super Tuesday,"
followed by a break that would allow voters to give front-runners a
second look. Bigger states would then vote, followed by more breaks,
until the biggest states would vote in a decisive final round.
Require full representation: In Democratic primaries and
caucuses, candidates should win a fair share of convention delegates
through full representation, where 25 percent of the vote earns a
proportional 25 percent of delegates. Republicans mostly use a
winner-take-all system, where the first-place finisher receives all
delegates. This 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 percent threshold necessary for Democrats
to win delegates.
Adopt Iowa's "second choice" system: Caucus participants
can vote for stronger candidates if their first choice can't win
delegates. Primary voters would gain this enhanced power if they
could indicate their second and third choice rather than vote for
just one. More voters would help elect delegates (in this year's
early primaries more than a quarter of voters supported candidates
who didn't win delegates), and candidates would be more likely to
reach out to supporters of other candidates and run positive
campaigns.
Remember the youth: Young voters - who are most likely to
be unregistered and are disproportionately registered as
independents and would benefit from being able to register on the
day of the primary and vote even if registered as an independent.
New Hampshire's primary rules allows this - and while youth turnout
remained low this year, young voters participated in bigger numbers
than in 2000.
Fix the financing: When most leading candidates opt out of
public financing, the system is broken. A 4-to-1 public match for
small donations should be provided, and participating candidates
given additional funds when opponents opt out.
Americans deserve elections in which more of them make a
difference, choices are meaningful, and their votes count. Political
parties can adopt most of these changes without Congressional
legislation. Let's push for reform before
2008.