Monday, March 19, 2007
Editorial: Virginia's primary power slips
As big states front load next year's presidential primary, it's time to consider revamping the system to restore equity.
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
When California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last week signed a bill that moves the giant state's 2008 presidential primary forward to Feb. 5, Virginians' roles in the selection process became much less meaningful.
Virginia has enjoyed a relatively early primary date in the past, not one of the first, but early enough that the races were usually still in play.
With the likes of Nevada, South Carolina, California and others leaping to the front of the primary season, however, so many delegates will have been allocated that the Republican and Democratic nominees might already be clear by the time it is Virginians' turn to vote next year. The fields will almost certainly have been trimmed, anyway.
It is hard to fault other states for wanting to grab more say in the primaries. After all, many of them were the ones languishing late in the game while Iowa, New Hampshire and a few other states enjoyed power disproportionate to their size.
Next year's primary will be an important one, too. It is the first time in a while that neither major party has an heir apparent or incumbent in the race.
Having a few smaller states dominate the early weeks of the primary season had some virtues. Candidates with good ideas but few resources could compete and establish themselves as viable contenders, for example.
The front-loading disrupts that. Candidates with modest resources cannot compete across many states, especially the large ones where advertising is expensive.
The same would happen if there were a national primary, as some have suggested. That system would eliminate the extended dialogue embodied in the primary season.
But the current system is flawed. It was almost inevitable that many states would move their primaries forward in response to the favoritism granted to a few.
A possibly better alternative worth considering is rotating states or groups of states through the early primary weeks every four years. That would be far more equitable. Voters in each state would periodically receive the national spotlight, the close attention of candidates and the power to shape the outcome.
If the system is not fully broken yet, it's headed in that direction. State and federal officials cannot fix it in time for next year, but it is not too soon to begin the debate about what better system might serve the crucial democratic responsibility of choosing presidential candidates in 2012 and beyond.
