1/11/2008 6:00:00

Election process must be changed

Now that the Iowa caucuses have heavily influenced who might be the next president, it's time Americans demand the election process change in this country.

Bluntly, the West is usually ignored. We don't have the Midwest clout in agriculture, or New Hampshire's No. 1 median income of any state, or the evangelical vote numbers of others.

Even the most populous state in the country has felt ignored: California moved up its primary to Feb. 5 to earn more clout, but became part of Super Tuesday with more than 20 other states.

Idaho has its Democrat caucuses on Feb. 5, but its Republican primary May 27. In Washington state, the primary is Feb. 19. In Oregon, the primary is May 20, one of a half dozen latest in the country.

By then, who cares about the West?

If anyone needed more evidence of how skewed politics has become, look at the numbers surrounding the Jan. 3 caucuses in Iowa. On the plus side, there was record turnout in Iowa. About 359,000 Iowans participated in the Democrat and Republican caucuses, out of an eligible 2,054,000 registered voters. It is admirable that a large percentage of people who took part may not have been involved in past caucuses, but now became involved. Iowa also showed encouraging results that a minority candidate like Sen. Barack Obama from Illinois could win with a majority of 38 percent support in a state that is 95 percent white.

Even better, voters showed money can't buy an election. The winners for the Republicans and the Democrats were not the biggest campaign spenders. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was outspent 15-to-1 by former governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney. In fact, Romney spent more than $6 million in ads alone in Iowa.

Former North Carolina senator John Edwards was outspent 6-to-1 by New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, yet narrowly beat her for second place in the Democratic caucus race in Iowa.

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean observed that the night showed that "you can't buy an election in Iowa" and also that negative elections don't work.

But the amount of money spent on Iowa was staggering. Some of the candidates each spent more than $400,000 per day near the end of the campaign. Overall, candidates spent about $200 per voter. Yet the low turnout of people for the caucuses demonstrates the large degree of apathy that exists despite the attention and dollars spent there. Hopefully other states will succeed in getting more voters to their primaries and caucuses.

Why was Iowa so important? Image and money.

The candidates needed to show they could be winners. They also knew a trickle of donations could turn to a gush of support.

But what is happening with caucuses and primaries across the country shows how flawed the system is in America.

The politicians scrambled bleary-eyed from Iowa to New Hampshire for its Jan. 8 primary. Some didn't even bother to visit Wyoming, which had its Republican caucuses on Jan. 5. Most media also ignored the state that was punished for moving up its date because it hoped to make a difference in the presidential race.

The last few months became a race by various states to see who could hold the earliest primaries or caucuses.

Politicians spent more than 300 days in Iowa campaigning for their votes. Now, other states will be lucky if they get a few days or even hours from the political hopefuls. They have less of a chance to not only meet the candidates, but to educate them on what is important to them.

One of the strongest reasons why there needs to be change - the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that on Jan. 1 the population was 303,146,284. While the number of eligible voters still needs to be determined, think about it: We, the people, allowed a state with about 2 million registered voters, and only 359,000 that voted, to heavily influence who will be the most powerful political leader in the country.

For the good of the nation, demand changes before 2012 - or things will only get worse.

http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?S ... leID=38281