Even though we're not a territory, some Oregonians feel like we have about as much political clout in this primary as Guam. Keith Smith, visiting assistant professor in the U of O department of Political Science gives us some reassurance.
By KEITH W. SMITH
Tomorrow, the nation will hold what is essentially its first national primary. Voters in 24 states - large states like California, smaller states like Delaware and swing states like New Mexico - will cast votes for the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates. Almost 1,700 (out of about 4,000 total) delegates to the Democratic National Convention and 1,100 (out of about 2,400) delegates to the Republican National Convention will be committed as a result of these events.
It is possible that both parties will decide their nominees tomorrow. Certainly the media will try to declare a winner. Among Republicans, Sen. John McCain appears to be emerging as the consensus choice, but former Gov. Mitt Romney may yet win. On the Democratic side, Sen. Hillary Clinton holds poll leads over Sen. Barack Obama in many of these states.
Over three months later, on May 20, Oregon voters will finally have the opportunity to voice their preferences. Even if there is no clear winner on tomorrow, by the time Oregon voters cast their ballots, 94 percent of the pledged Democratic delegates and 91 percent of the Republican delegates will have been decided. Only four states (Idaho, New Mexico, South Dakota and Nebraska) will hold Republican contests after Oregon; just two states (Montana and South Dakota) plus Puerto Rico will hold Democratic contests. The likelihood that Oregon will cast the deciding vote in either party is exceedingly small.
One might conclude from these facts that Oregon's voice will not matter in the nominating contests. One might further conclude that because Oregon voters will cast their ballots after the nominations will have likely been determined, they have essentially been disenfranchised. Both conclusions are wrong.
Let's consider these thoughts in reverse order.
First, participation in the nomination process is a privilege not a right. America is unique in that the national parties allow voters the opportunity to participate. There is no constitutional requirement or federal law that makes them do so. In most democracies voters are simply presented with a set of party nominees. We get to choose ours.
In fact, only the Democratic Party mandates voter participation and it has done so only since 1972. Previously, primaries were beauty contests that demonstrated electability but ultimately did not determine the nominees. In 1968, then Vice President Hubert Humphry became the Democratic nominee without participating in a single primary. Even today, Republican voters in some states (like Wyoming) do not have the opportunity to vote on the nominees. Party leaders pick delegates for them at conventions.
Second, the conclusion that because Oregon voters will cast their ballots so late in the process their votes will not count is based on an erroneous assumption. It assumes that in order for my vote to be meaningful, I have to decide the final outcome. Clearly this is wrong. Having the right to participate in the nomination process is a very different thing than being decisive to the outcome.
Consider the plight of the 220 New Hampshire voters who cast their ballots for former Ambassador Alan Keyes in the Republican primary, which McCain won with over 88,000 votes (37 percent of the Republican vote). Alan Keyes stood as much of a chance then of winning nomination as Fred Thompson does now after having exited the race - none. Does that mean that those votes did not count? Does that mean that the 220 people who voted for Alan Keyes were disenfranchised because he never stood a chance of winning? Not at all. Those 220 voters were able to go to the polls and express their political preferences just like everybody else.
In the same way Oregon voters will have the opportunity to cast their ballots in May for whomever they choose. Our choices may be more constrained than in other states as candidates exit the race, but the range of choice does not necessarily affect the meaning of the vote.
Consider the plight of Michigan Democrats on Jan. 15. People who wanted to vote for Obama or New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson in the Democratic primary could not. Both candidates withdrew their names from the ballot. Were those voters disenfranchised because they could not vote for their preferred candidate? Not at all. (A better argument would be that they were disenfranchised because their state knowingly violated Democratic and Republican Party rules and as a consequence was stripped of its delegates to the national convention, but that's another issue.)
We are regularly presented with limited voting choices; for example, we vote up or down on ballot measures not whether or how they ought to be modified. Constrained ballot choice is actually a good thing - too many choices in a plurality-voting system like ours can lead to confusion and undesirable outcomes.
Is Oregon's voice unimportant, then? Will we be the moral equivalent of Alan Keyes supporters screaming into the New Hampshire wind? At the individual level, it doesn't matter as long as we have the ability to do so. At the party or national level, Oregon's vote will still be important for several reasons.
First, the delegates that Oregon sends to the conventions will play an important role in determining the content of each party's policy platforms. The media may not pay attention to this fact, but candidates and party leaders do. The size of the candidate delegations affects their ability to influence the positions each party takes, and in closely fought nomination contests like we are seeing platform fights can be important.
Second, turnout in the Oregon primaries will also be an important political signal about the strength of the two parties. Thus far, turnout in Democratic nominating events has exceeded turnout in Republican events. If turnout is higher among Democrats in Oregon, even though its primaries come so late in the process, national political leaders will take it as a sign that the energy is on the Democratic side in 2008.
Third, on the off (but not improbable) chance that the nominations are undecided when Oregon votes we will play a very important role in the nomination process. As one of the last states to vote before the national conventions, our choices will be watched with great interest by party leaders and the national media. Small changes in support from one candidate to another will be imbued with outsized significance.
So while Oregon voters may feel left out as much of the nation votes tomorrow, we should not feel like we do not matter or that our voice will not be heard. We do. It will be.
No comments:
Post a Comment