California Is Irrelevant in Choosing a President

California voters have become irrelevant to the business of selecting candidates for the office of the President of the United States.

Once again in 1988 Californians found themselves sitting in the stands as spectators rather than playing an active role in the outcome of presidential politics. California is among the last states in the nation to hold its presidential primary--yet we have the largest population, the largest number of delegates to the nominating conventions and the largest number of Electoral College votes in the November general election.

Sadly, 85% of all delegates to the Democratic National Convention and an even greater percentage of the delegates to the Republican National Convention are already chosen by the time Californians vote on June 7.

There are some persons who still believe that Californians could decide a deadlock in the Republican or Democratic primary races in June and thus play a very important role. In reality California Democrats have not played a significant role since 1972 (George McGovern vs. Hubert Humphrey), and California Republicans have not done so since 1964 (Barry Goldwater vs. Nelson Rockefeller). We have been afforded the luxury, for what it is worth, of having two nominees from California elected to office (Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan) during this period. This year, however, no Western contenders survived the early primaries to have a shot at winning California.

Another notable point: More presidential campaign money is raised in California than in any other state. Presidential candidates come here long before the first primary, and continue to visit throughout the four-month primary season seeking contributions. This money is then used to pay for advertising time, campaign staffing, political mailings and travel-related expenses throughout the nation. Practically none of it is spent here. By the time the few remaining candidates make it to California, they are forced to wage low-key campaigns because they have spent their funds elsewhere or, more commonly, have already reached federal campaign spending limits.

California has yet to do anything to rectify the situation.

There have been several proposals in the Legislature to move California’s primary to March or April. There were certainly more than two Democratic candidates and one Republican candidate actively campaigning during those months. Bringing these candidates to California would give our voters a greater voice in whom the ultimate nominees would be.

Would California voters turn out if they were given more attention from a wider field of presidential candidates? As it is now, their votes truly do not seem to make a difference. If California’s primary were held earlier, candidates would spend more time and money here. The level of excitement in early primary states could be matched right here, and I believe it would follow that voter turnout would increase.

What if California threw a party and no one came? It may soon cease to be a rhetorical question if the presidential primary remains in June and the downward trend in California’s voter turnout continues. The June 7 primary election this year drew about a 47% turnout--one of the worst ever for a presidential primary.

Legislation to move up our primary date has remained stalled in the Legislature. Gov. George Deukmejian has opposed such efforts, saying that he has heard no compelling argument for the change and believes that an earlier primary would be too costly.

Focusing on the potential cost is shortsighted. One only has to look at the economic benefits to California of a full-fledged presidential-primary campaign. But of even greater importance is the nomination of candidates who understand California’s complex economic and social needs.

California should have a voice in who will be the next President of the United States. Do Californians care if the next President understands our state’s diverse and highly specialized economy? Do Californians care about the position of the next President on the war against drugs and gang violence, the environment, defense spending, trade competitiveness and highway and mass-transit funding? Do Californians care about education, agriculture, adequate medical care and sufficient research and development to carry us into the 21st Century?

I believe that Californians do care. Is anyone listening?