Who Needs A Primary?

By Mitch Frank

It has become an election-year tradition. Every four years state governments hold their presidential primaries earlier and earlier, trying to ensure that their voters get to influence the race before most candidates drop out. Next year six states are planning to hold primaries a week after New Hampshire's. And four weeks later the nomination will probably be all but locked up. But the front-loading of the primary season is having an unintended effect. Some states, frustrated at not having any influence on the nomination and trying to save money, are dropping out. Three states--Colorado, Utah and Kansas--have canceled their primaries for next year. Missouri and Tennessee are considering doing the same. In 2000 George W. Bush effectively secured the nomination after only nine states had voted. Al Gore was the victor after only two primaries. By the time Missouri voted March 7, turnout was just 19%. With a $1 billion budget gap forcing state workers to unscrew every third light bulb to save on electricity, some Missouri legislators say spending $3.7 million on a primary doesn't make sense. Politics is also a consideration. The three states that have canceled their primaries have Republican-controlled legislatures. With Bush assured the G.O.P. nomination, they see no reason to spend millions on a primary that will give more exposure to Democrats. The loser in all this is the voter. In states that ax primaries, the parties will return to older methods of choosing a candidate--caucuses or conventions--for next year's campaign. "Most voters are not going to take a day off and go to a party caucus," says University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato. "That guarantees most won't have a voice." --By Mitch Frank