Posted on 02/27/2004 9:08:10 PM PST by Utah Girl
Utah Democrats held a presidential primary election this past week.
And while it is un-American to ever argue against an election, this primary comes about as close as one can to that disloyal stance.
First, let me put the 2004 Utah Democratic primary in some perspective.
According to information put out by the party, which had to organize and fund the primary itself because the GOP-dominated 2003 Legislature wouldn't pay for it, 35,191 people voted.
Much was made in the media last week over that being a great turnout. I beg to differ.
State election officials say there are just over 1.1 million registered voters in Utah. All could have participated Tuesday, even registered Republicans.
Thus, the voter turnout was 3.1 percent, overall. That is really poor participation, not good participation.
But, some would say, you shouldn't expect Republicans to bother to come out and vote for Democratic presidential candidates. So, if we take out the Republicans (surveys by pollster Dan Jones & Associates shows that about 40 percent of Utahns consider themselves Republicans), and then refigure the calculations, you have a voter turnout of 5.1 percent for Democrats and political independents — those who may want to have a say in who the Democratic Party's nominee is this year.
A 5.1 percent turnout is better than 3.1 percent. But not by much.
Democrats said there were long lines at polling places, much enthusiasm, and the primary was a great success.
I can't speak to the enthusiasm. But there were only 111 polling places in the primary, compared to around 1,200 in a general election. One could expect some long lines.
True, the 35,000 people who turned out Tuesday were more than the 27,000 who voted in the Democrats' 1992 presidential primary straw poll. But then we have nearly 1 million more people in the state now than we had then.
In 2000, the Legislature — after much organization and lobbying by then GOP Gov. Mike Leavitt — ponied up $600,000 to have a statewide, state run, state taxpayer funded, presidential primary.
It was held in March, later than this year's Democratic primary, but still timed to have an impact on the overall nomination races for Republicans and Democrats (both were picking nominees that year from large candidate fields).
Voter turnout then was 10 percent. Also, not good.
So, this year the Democrats spent around $30,000 of their own money to hold an election in which between 3 percent and 5 percent — depending on how you figure it — participated.
Now let's look at the results and true impacts of the election.
In 2000, just before the March Utah primary, the main opponents of both then Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore got out of the races.
Bush and Gore would likely have won Utah anyway. But with no opposition, they coasted to victory here.
Although Bush did make a brief airport visit to Utah, Mountain West issues were not discussed nationally. We were basically ignored.
Utah voted for Bush in the final election — like it has for every Republican presidential nominee since Lyndon Johnson carried the state in 1964. All the Utahns who voted for someone other than Bush saw their votes for naught; this is how the Electoral College works.
Fast forward to 2004.
Again, the Democratic race was about decided before Tuesday. The two major candidates still standing — John Kerry and John Edwards — didn't bother to show up here. Western issues were not discussed. We were ignored.
Bush will be the Utah GOP nominee again (his delegate slate will be picked in the May 8 state GOP convention).
Unless something very strange happens, Utahns will, again, vote for the Republican nominee in November. And any Utahns who vote for anyone other than Bush will have their votes mean nothing.
But, wasn't Tuesday's Democratic primary of value? Didn't some non-Bush Utahns get to have a say?
Yes.
But does anyone really think that anyone other than Sen. Kerry, D-Mass., will win the Democratic nomination this year?
And, anyway, Kerry did win here, like he has in most other states' primaries or caucuses.
In 1992, Bill Clinton, the ultimate nominee, didn't win in the Utah Democratic Party's straw-poll primary. He visited here only briefly. (I'm reminded of that by current party chairman Donald Dunn. I'd forgotten Clinton even bothered to show up here during that campaign.)
Paul Tsongas, who ran some ads in the state, won here. But, of course, he failed badly in the overall party nomination race. Turnout was less than 5 percent, which was better than this year's.
Dunn confessed to me several weeks ago that Utah Democrats probably should have held their primary this year even earlier — that the race was all but over for his party's nomination.
We did hear from some candidates this year — on the phone. At least two candidates had an automated telephone calling program going into people's homes, asking them to vote for that person. On Kerry's behalf, I got calls from Ted Wilson, Jim Bradley and, finally, from Kerry — the old silver-haired senator himself asking me to vote for him Tuesday.
I didn't. I didn't vote at all — like 97 percent of other registered Utah voters — although I have voted in real Democratic and Republican primaries in years past.
The answer, I suppose, is to have state-organized presidential primaries held every four years (not just when GOP lawmakers want to spend tax dollars on their own party's voting), and held early enough in the primary season to have some impact.
We should also work to have a regional primary — as Leavitt desired, but failed in achieving. I find it interesting that — surprise, surprise — GOP Western leaders, who control most their states' legislatures, are once again talking about such a coordinated primary in 2008, when Republicans will have a contested presidential primary race.
Its a party primary, not a government primary. Government has no business funding primaries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.