Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098
mayorsam@mayorsam.org

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

The Race To Be Earliest


By Jennifer Solis

There’s no doubt that the current presidential primary process has made California irrelevant in the sweepstakes to choose a political party’s nominee.

But the bill (AB2949) passed Tuesday by the California Assembly Elections Committee to make our state hold the first nationwide primary is both unrealistic and fails to address the real problem facing voters who actually want to help select the leader of the free world.

Orange County Democrat Assemblyman Tom Umberg, who authored the pending legislation, thinks that because his bill “requires [our] Secretary of State to schedule California’s presidential primary election so that it is held before, or on the same day as, the presidential primary held in any other state,” that this will really happen. Wrong!

New Hampshire has a long standing law that requires that state to hold its primary at least seven days prior to any other state. So what will AB2949 give us? A progressively moved up schedule of dueling election days that could end up holding the 2008 primary this summer (of 2006). In the end, one of the states would have to give in. Which one?

The disenfranchisement of California voters in the presidential selection will not be solved here in California. It must be addressed at the national level. The solution must also include the elimination of the California Republicans' “winner-take-all” system, that results in a candidate finishing a close second in the primary getting shut out at the national convention.

Because California holds one of the final elections of the primary season, by which time, the race is all but over, none of the candidates are encouraged to come into our state, and seriously talk about issues important to Californians. The only candidate appearances are for fund raisers, such as President Bush’s visit to the Southland this past weekend. We serve no other purpose than an ATM machine.

AB2949 would allow the presidential primary voting to be performed by mail. Everyone would use the equivalent of an absentee ballot. Umberg estimates the cost at about $40-million – half the cost of precinct voting. Could there be sufficient security? Surely, we must have the ability to develop procedures that couldn’t be hacked or compromised.

The one good aspect of Umberg’s bill would separate the presidential race from the other statewide offices and propositions. The regular primary for the latter would continue to be held the Tuesday following the first Monday in June. Presidential politics are considerably different from state and local issues, and should be voted upon separately. But when?

The decision of when to choose party candidates for president must come from an appointed election commission, which will set the presidential primary dates for all 50 states. The best method would be to group the 50 states into ten regions of five states each. The election dates for each region would be determined by lottery – such as drawing them out of a hat. The entire procedure would be repeated every four years, to give every state, or group of states, an equal chance at being early, last or somewhere in between.

The primary elections would start the first week of April and end ten weeks later in early June. That allows at least two months to prepare for the national conventions, which should be much more meaningful and exciting (read TV ratings) by having the states send delegates selected on a proportional basis, according to each candidate’s share of the states' primary voting. Independent and “decline-to-state” voters could vote in only one of a major party’s primary, but could choose another party four years later.

The current system of allowing New Hampshire and Iowa, the first two states to select primary candidates, gives them unrealistic influence over the overall process. Their procedures for these selections have little to do with choosing successful national standard bearers who have broad-based appeal. Being victorious in the NH elections or the Iowa caucuses relies more upon precinct organization and local endorsements.

A national candidate must have a campaign based on a strong message, and the ability to speak well on television.

Why not have a national primary, for all 50 states, in June? The cost would be prohibitive. Just look what it costs just to run a Senate campaign in California. The candidates would simply select a few “swing” states in which to campaign, as is now done prior to the November general election. The national conventions, which showcase each party’s message, and allow for a possible “dark horse” to emerge with the nomination, would become extinct.

So thanks, Assemblyman Umberg for trying. If your bill somehow passes the legislature and is signed by the governator, at least the competition with New Hampshire should be fun. But in the final analysis, election reform is a national problem, and will not be corrected in Sacramento.

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Jennifer, Your entire article is based on the premise that NH has undue influence over the rest of the country but often the candidate who wins NH doesn't make it through the primary.

What needs to happen is voters need to become educated on the people who have decided to run and get past the spin.

Look at the cesspool that Rocky Delgadio in the AG race, Alex Padilla in SD 20 or Lyn Shaw in AD38 have dove into. Why? Because negative campaigning works. It is easier to oppose than support.

When Americans wake up and give a damn, things will change. Until then, this is all academic.

April 27, 2006 4:20 AM  

Blogger Damian said:

Jennifer, if you're interested in comprehensive primary reform check out the American Plan at www.americanplan.org. It's a largely randomized plan that starts with small primaries and moves to progressively larger primaries. It's been endorsed by the California Democratic Party and Chairman Art Torres, but we need Democratic and Republican support in all 50 states to make it happen.

April 27, 2006 4:45 PM  

Blogger Jennifer Solis said:

To Damian --
Thank you for the link, I'll look it up and add it to my file.

Trouble with any plan that requires three-fourths of the states to ratify -- it just won't happen. The samll red states are enjoying their narcissism so much that they would never give up their power to block any proposal that reduces it.

Changing the Electoral College system requires a Constitutional amendment. A national primary commission could probably be accomplished by executive order. Remember, we're ONLY trying to change the PRESIDENTIAL part of the primary. The states can hold their state and local primary separately, under my proposal.

April 27, 2006 9:03 PM  

Blogger Damian said:

Hi Jennifer! Thanks for reading.

In answer to your concerns, the American Plan would not require a Constitutional Amendment, although its passage does depend on the DNC and the RNC passing the plan in 2008 (for implementation in 2012.) States would then face a choice of moving their primary to fit the schedule, or possibly losing the right to seat their delegates at convention. I believe 48 out of 50 states would jump at the chance to participate in a fair primary system. (You can guess who the other two states are.)

Remember, the primary system is not in the constitution and has nothing to do with the electoral college. It is entirely a creation of the parties. Thus all it would take to pass it is the courage to stand up to our traditional "first" states.

April 28, 2006 8:59 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Advertisement

Advertisement