Maryland Democrats heading to the polls today can take some
satisfaction that they still have a choice among candidates in the
race for the presidential nomination.
But backers of candidates who have dropped out will have to
settle for a smaller, less diverse field because of choices made in
earlier primaries and caucuses.
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts has a clear edge, having so far
won 18 of the 20 contests electing delegates. But Sen. John Edwards
of North Carolina is pushing him hard. Dennis Kucinich and The Rev.
Al Sharpton are still pursuing their long-shot candidacies.
The Iowa caucuses and the primaries that followed knocked out the
five other major contenders. The candidate most focused on Maryland
last year, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, has stopped campaigning,
as have retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark, Rep. Dick Gephardt of
Missouri, former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois and Sen.
Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.
The rushed primary schedule has cost Marylanders their power of a
full choice, as it did for everyone in the 32 states voting after
Mr. Kerry's critical win in Wisconsin Feb. 17. Front-loading the
primaries effectively has disenfranchised most Democrats and allowed
front-runners to avoid the intense scrutiny they would have faced in
a more competitive race -- and that the Democratic nominee certainly
will get from President George W. Bush's re-election campaign.
Perhaps most importantly for both the November election and
beyond, if today's 10 primaries virtually lock up the nomination,
Democrats won't have any incentive in the remaining primaries to
mobilize new voters and encourage more attention to their case for
the White House.
In retrospect, Mr. Kerry apparently gained a huge advantage by
his surprise win in Iowa, which led to his convincing follow-up
victory in his home territory of New Hampshire. The rushed primary
schedule gave him nearly unstoppable momentum.
Some Democratic Party leaders would be pleased with a quick win
that allows them to focus on fund raising for November, but they are
making a serious mistake -- both for winning in November and
building their party and a strong democracy over time.
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 -- with
new approaches:
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.
Create an inclusive, sensible schedule. To avoid a nine-month
general election campaign of sniping and personal attacks -- and
yes, it's already started -- 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 win a fair share of convention delegates
through full representation, in which 25 percent of the vote earns a
proportional 25 percent of delegates.
Republicans, however, mostly use a winner-take-all system in
which 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 consider lowering the 15 percent threshold required by
Democrats to win delegates.
Adopt Iowa's "second choice" system. Voting in a public meeting,
Iowa's caucus participants can vote for stronger candidates if it's
clear that their first choice can't win delegates. Primary voters
would gain this enhanced power if they could indicate their second
and third choice candidates rather than just vote for 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 young voters. They 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 allow these provisions, but Maryland's do not. And, while
youth turnout remained low this year, young voters participated in
bigger numbers than in 2000 -- 400 percent more in Iowa and 50
percent more in New Hampshire.
Fix the financing. When leading candidates like Mr. Kerry, Dr.
Dean and Mr. Bush 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.
We deserve elections in which more of us make a difference,
choices are meaningful and our votes count. Parties can adopt most
of these changes without congressional legislation. Let's reform so
that in 2008, Marylanders -- and the rest of the nation -- have a
better choice.
Rob Richie is executive director of the Center for Voting &
Democracy in Takoma Park. Steven Hill is the center's senior
analyst, based in San Francisco.
