If you live in the south, you have little to say in the choice for president. If you live in the west, your input is minimal. If you live in Texas, the second most populous state in the nation, you have the least influence of all. This is according to figures published by FairVote.com for the 2004 election. It makes little difference if you are a Democrat, Republican, independent, or, as Teddy Roosevelt once said, “A mugwump, a bird that straddles the fence with his mug on one side and his wump on the other.”

The problem is our presidential primary system and the rush of states who want to be first in the primary. They have the most influence in picking the president, and not only that, but receive the most money spent by candidates. Oklahoma should not be called the Sooner State. That title should go to Iowa, Ohio, and New Hampshire the top three states in the FairVote ranking. Big bucks pour into those states for each primary and their voters choose the candidates.

Prior to 1970, political parties chose their presidential candidates in rip-roaring conventions filled with hoopla and podium thumping. Usually this was preceded by a quiet session of bargaining in a smoke-filled room where the actual selection was made. This was the system those of us over the age of fifty remember well and polls show a majority of us prefer.

In 1970, well-intentioned reform brought us open primary presidential elections in a nationwide free-for-all. It didn‚t take long, however, until the Sooner States muscled in early to take the campaign dollars and make the presidential choices. Now we have Iowa, Ohio, and New Hampshire picking the candidates and sitting on the lion’s share of the money. New Hampshire claims they deserve the honor for they are a true swing state.

According to the John F. Kennedy School of Government, “The peak level of voter involvement (46 percent) occurred in the days immediately following the Super Tuesday primaries.” After that it dropped to a frightful low of 20 percent, long before most states in the south and west had voted. As the Kennedy group points out, this is unacceptable and needs reform. Their suggestions for reform include, 1. Restrictions on front loading 2. A nominating process that remains competitive for a longer period of time to give the public greater opportunity to become informed and take part in the campaign 3. A shorter interval between the final, decisive contests and the party conventions 4. A system that increases the likelihood that voters in ALL states have effective voices in the selection of nominees.

The Kennedy group lists a number of presidential primary election plans to correct the problem. These plans were not the product of the Kennedy group but originated by groups that felt disenfranchised by the present system. There is the Delaware Plan, California Plan, Rotating Regional Plan, etc. All of the plans have some major disadvantages. The American Plan, advocated by FairVote, borrows from all the plans and attempts to minimize the disadvantages.

The American plan advocates revolving dates of primary elections, including smaller states as well as southern and western states early in the voting. It would allow populated states like Texas, California, New York, and Florida to vote early enough to gain more influence on the candidates. It is specifically designed to eliminate front end loading. (You can bet your boots the three early-birds will vigorously oppose any changes.)

Voter apathy is a threat to our republic. We have seen how gerrymandering imprisons voters in districts dominated by an opposing party, leaving the voter with no hope of electing their choice. They stay home from the polls and apathy results. This apathy is exacerbated by our primary system.

Today, we know that primary voters are usually dyed-in-the-wool party members. Their choices in presidential primaries result in polarized candidates representing the more extreme views of the party as they pander to the faithful. An example is seen in the MoveOn.org web site which urges Democrats to abandon such politicians as moderate Texas Democrat Henry Cuellar, whom they say betrays the principals of the Party. Such extremism discourages moderate voters and adds to the enmity and often hateful behavior we see in Washington. Let’s bring moderation back into our politics and allow moderates to participate in the process.