Every vote should count. Too bad they won’t for Illinois voters who will likely have no say in determining the presidential nominees this year.
An increasingly front-loaded nominating schedule means that 34 states will have conducted primaries or caucuses before Illinois gets a turn March 16. By that time, the frontrunners from both parties will probably have secured the required delegates needed to lock up the nominations.
Illinois not only loses relevance and influence under the current setup, but the Land of Lincoln also disenfranchises voters from the nominating process and threatens to depress turnout in local races.
Illinois isn’t alone. Even if the nominations are still up for grabs for Illinois voters in mid-March, voters from many other states will take part in primaries in which the presidential nominees are a foregone conclusion. This has prompted several states to take action.
To save money, seven states have cancelled their primaries this year, replacing them with caucuses that are funded by the parties. But a caucus system puts the decision-making into the hands of the party faithful and hard-core activists. This results in fewer voters who are expressing significantly narrowed opinions.
Other states have moved their primaries to earlier dates so their voters will have more impact. But accelerating the primary season places hardships on underfunded, underdog candidates with fewer resources and less time to get their message across to voters, and it favors more established, well-heeled candidates.
Despite obvious shortcomings, we shouldn’t scrap the primary system altogether. Instead we should develop a national or regional primary system that would eventually give all states a voice in anointing party nominees.
Under a regional primary system, the nation would be divided into four regions of comparable populations that would hold primary elections a month apart beginning in February. Every four years the order would rotate, giving each region a shot at going first, thereby distributing regional influence and significance.
This sensible alternative would provide greater fairness and ample time for candidates to debate broader issues that would address concerns of a more diverse electorate in the beginning of the process.
Until then, the presidential primary in Illinois will remain an exercise in futility, as we are forced to let voters from other states decide who will represent us.
