OCR Text |
Show High Aspirations in the Rocky Mountains: The Push for a Western Region Presidential Primary Peter C. Carlston force candidates to study the region's issues more closely and spend more time campaigning here" (Fahys 1998). Would a regional primary bring more media and candidate attention to the intermountain west? Would it increase Utah's political clout? This article traces the evolution of today's presidential primary system in the nation and in the western states. The similarities between the southern states' Super Tuesday regional primary and the proposed Rocky Mountain primary are examined. Next comes an analysis of the details of the proposed regional primary. Then some alternatives are considered. In conclusion, the paper comments upon the analysis and makes recommendations concerning the proposed Rocky Mountain Primary. Overview of Presidential Primaries The Nomination Process Primaries in the presidential nomination process came about in 1972 when reforms were enacted to increase voter participation in a more open nomination process and to more accurately represent the presidential candidate preferences of the voters (Werner 1996). Until 1972, primaries were bellwethers of who would be nominated, not determinative (Magleby 1998). The Democratic party was the first to institute state primaries and the Republican party did the same soon thereafter. Through the years, the primary system has erratically evolved by states seeking to manipulate the primaries to their own advantage. It is important to note that the presidential primary system as it is presently structured is not the result of foresight or federal legislation; it is an ad hoc system which has evolved on its own, and it changes from year to year "in response to political upheaval and changes in communication and campaign technology" (Haskell 1996b, 72). A primary election is like a general election, but the ballots are separated by party; Democratic candidates run against each other within their own party, and the Republicans hold their own primary. By voting for a particular candidate, the voter is actually selecting the delegates who are committed to the nomination of that candidate (34). The delegates are those who will represent the state at the national party convention. States are allotted delegates according to their populations. In selecting the delegates for their national conventions, the two parties differ greatly. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) strictly regulates state primaries while the Republican National Committee (RNC) leaves the procedures up to each state to determine independently. Another difference is that most Democratic state parties require that delegates be chosen according to the proportions of the popular vote results. Most Republican state parties use a winner-take-all system: The candidate who wins the popular vote is awarded all of the delegate votes for that state (35). Another method of presidential delegate selection that both parties use in about fifteen states (including Utah) is the caucus/convention system (36). It consists of progressive lev- els of caucuses (meetings), from precinct to county levels, then to congressional districts, and finally a state convention which allocates the delegates. Frontloading Since 1972, the nomination process as a whole has undergone some unexpected changes. The state primary system brought a competition among states to increase their influence over neighboring states by moving their primary dates earlier and earlier in the year, hoping to gain greater predominance in the presidential race (Haskell 1996a, 1996b; Castle 1991; Gurian 1993; Loevy 1995; Heilprin 1998). Why? States understand that presidential candidates who need votes in a particular state will pay close attention to that state's local and regional issues. In turn, the national media focuses on the state's needs and opinions as well (Haskell 1996a, 1996b; Castle 1991; Gurian 1991, 1993). This jockeying for early primary dates is called "front-loading." Political scientist John Haskell (1996a; 1996b) has tracked the percentages of delegates selected earlier and earlier in election years as a result of frontloading: Table 1: Frontloading - Percentage of Delegates Selected, 1992 and 1996 Democrats (%) Year March 14 March 31 1992 34.7 45.4 1996 49.0 76.4 Republicans (%) March 14 March 31 37.0 42.5 49.6 74.7 Some of the implications of frontloading have included the lower turnout of voters in states later in the process (Magleby 1998). Additionally, candidates must begin with huge campaign funds earlier and earlier in the campaign, assuring that only the well-funded and well-recognized candidates have a chance (Haskell 1998a). As statistics show, every election year sees more and more states seeking to leapfrog each other to earlier primary dates. With three exemptions (the Iowa caucuses, the New Hampshire primaries, and the Maine caucuses), the DNC restricts delegate selection events, requiring they be held between the first Tuesday in March and the second Tuesday in June. The RNC's date limitations are the first Monday in February and the third Tuesday in June. States are increasingly cramming their delegate selection events into the first part of the season, resulting in secured nominations by the end of March. Regional Primaries Another way states have attempted to increase their political pull has been to create regional primaries. States realize that only a few of them really have influence on presidential candidates, and those are the states which have either an early, trend-setting primary, such as New Hampshire, or a signifi- 2 See Appendix, Table 4: 1996 State Delegate Selection Dates. 42 |