November 10, 2003

Primary Problem

Some states are canceling their Presidential primaries or are replacing them with caucuses in 2004. With the primaries becoming so front-loaded, some states feel holding one would be a waste of money and wouldn't add to the Presidential race. Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, is concerned with the move to caucuses because "fewer voters will participate because [caucuses] are more complex." This unintended effect of front-loaded primaries may return more power to political parites to choose candidates. For a number of years, I've thought it strange that people who never participate in party functions or even associate themselves with a particular party could help pick a party's candidate. Republicans should pick the Republican candidate for office; Democrats should pick Democrats; Libertarians should pick Libertarians, etc. We are allowed free association in the U.S. A corollary to that is groups have the right to govern themselves and decide who will publically represent them. Voters don't pick the heads of the RNC, DNC, or state parties. They shouldn't pick

But the argument in favor of open primaries is that the more people who participate the better. Oh, really? In the AP story, about 20% of registered voters vote in primaries. Open primaries still are a guild for party activists.

If we are to continue the primary system, we should either move toward a national primary like James Joyner suggests or make the parties shoulder the costs of holding primaries (another Joyner suggestion).

"Several States Move to Cancel Primaries"

"Primaries Cancelled"