DISENFRANCHISING MOST VOTERS

Forbes.com/columnists ^ | 06.10.02, 12:00 AM ET (29 May 2002 Web) | Steve Forbes

[ThePythonicCow]

Both the Republican and Democratic parties have been accelerating the timetable for the presidential nominating process. In 1996 and 2000 nominees were known by early March, even though the conventions did not take place until late summer and the general election until November. Now the Demo-crats are front-loading the system even more: In 2004 both the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary will be held in January, with other state contests coming fast and furious in early February. By Valentine's Day the contest will be over.

Why the rush? Why deprive most of the country of a chance to have their voices heard in the nominating process? Party professionals front-loaded the contests in 2000 to hobble outsiders. Their theory: Outsiders, even if they scored well in Iowa or New Hampshire, wouldn't have enough time to assemble the resources necessary to compete effectively in a dozen primaries falling on a single day. (Of course, an unknown could burst onto the scene and, thanks to the abbreviated process, win before he'd undergone proper scrutiny.

In a parliamentary system, voters know the party candidates for the top office well in advance of an election. In the U.S., by contrast, voters must get to know--and size up--aspirants during the presidential campaign itself. Just about every candidate who gets traction eventually undergoes a hazing from the press, in which he is the subject of numerous unflattering stories. Swarms of TV reporters badger the candidate with questions, hoping to trip him up. It's not pleasant to undergo, but it does give voters the opportunity to gauge how well the wanna-be nominee handles pressure. Given the nature of the presidency, with its unexpected crises and incessant domestic demands, voters want to see if a presidential contender can stand the heat. Ross Perot, for instance, would probably have won the popular vote in 1992, and perhaps even the Oval Office itself, had he not, while undergoing intense media probing, suddenly withdrawn from the race from July 16 to Oct. 1.

Instead of a now-you-see-it-now-you-don't approach, the parties should make the presidential nominating process more delib-erate, more inclusive. After Iowa and New Hampshire, why not have only two or three primaries or caucuses a week? Voters would get to know the candidates better, and more states would have a real voice. Issues would get thrashed out, and the public might become more engaged. Nominating contests would still be over before summer began. Such a change is so sensible it will probably never happen.

[ThePythonicCow]

Maybe there's a light at the end of this tunnel. As entrenched parties strive to more and more control their destiny, they increase the risk of chaotic collapse (catastrophic collapse, from their perspective). As the article even notes, an unknown could burst .... Perhaps this leads the way to breaking the Democran/Republicrat monopoly on political power.