Snubbed?

State of Michigan hurt by primary policies

Remember the good old days when politicians went from town to town, standing on soapboxes and spouting their campaign platforms? Of course you don't. You're a college student. What you know of politicians comes from advertisements on commercials and television news programs. Some of our more politically oriented readers might find out from a newspaper or the Internet. However you receive your information, it is most likely not from the politicians themselves. Michigan itself rarely receives more than a five-hour stop on the campaign route. The only states to get real personal attention from candidates, along with lots of attention and revenue from the media, are New Hampshire and Iowa, traditionally the first states in the nation to hold their respective primary or caucus.

Tired of playing second fiddle to these states, Michigan has joined numerous other states in a mad dash to move up their primaries and make their state more influential in choosing the future president. This front-loading of primaries causes the dates to be pushed earlier and earlier, politicians to campaign longer and travel more and spend even more money on their already multi-million dollar campaigns. Essentially, we are experiencing a breakdown of the already troubled primary system.

Michigan Democrats attempted to make their polls first in the nation by moving the date to Feb. 12, but backed away after a thumbs-down from the Democratic National Committee. Michigan Republicans have already moved the GOP primary to Feb. 22nd, one week after New Hampshire. Because of these and other threats to their leading position, New Hampshire has decided to change its primary date to Feb. 1 - the earliest in history. In fact, the legislature felt so threatened by other states that it recently passed a bill allowing future primaries to be held in December, if need be. Iowa has also moved its caucus up to Jan. 31 and is considering a move to December.

Political advisers agree New Hampshire and Iowa play a key role in selecting future presidents. President Clinton was considered by many to be a long shot for president until he captured second in the New Hampshire primary.

With the actual elections so far off, many wonder whether voters will pay attention to the primaries, or take the time to learn enough about the candidates. Only 18 percent of Michiganders voted in the last presidential primary with open spots on both the republican and democratic ballots. How many would take a break from their holidays or vacation time to watch CNN, or even bother to trudge through the snow and vote? In many local elections, such as very democratic Detroit or the traditionally republican western lower Michigan, who wins the primary usually ends up the de facto winner of the election. States should encourage as many people as possible to vote; moving up the primary will do just the opposite.

This frontloading is also a blow to poorer, lesser-known candidates, and a boon to politicians with large pocketbooks. With so many primaries in so little time, candidates will need to spend more time and money flying back and forth across the country to build up support. Those who can put out more advertisements will have the advantage of reaching out to more people.

Another issue - reorganizing the primaries - is exactly what the National Association of Secretaries of State proposes. Their plan would use a system of regional primaries, starting in 2004, where eastern states would go first, in the first week of March, followed by southern, midwestern and western states in the first weeks of April, May and June, respectively. The region going last would go first next time. Iowa and New Hampshire would keep traditional leadoff spots. While the preference shown towards the two traditional starting states should be taken out, this plan is a necessary measure that should be implemented in the next election.

10-13-99