More Notes in This Tune Than ‘So Long, June’ : Politics: California can advance the primary voting to March, but that doesn’t mean the state will necessarily gain in presidential-selection influence.

Predicting the gains from moving California’s primary from June to March is a lot like predicting who the party nominees will be. It is doubtful that all will go according to plan and that the predictions will prove accurate. It is also less than certain that the intended improvements will be achieved.

If the goal is to give California its fair share of power, the way to achieve that is to exchange the current system for a national primary or a few regional primaries spread over a very short time.

Advancing the state’s primary date is inviting in theory. California has a unique and important perspective. Its demographics accurately reflect the nation’s as a whole. Its voice should be heard with the decibels reflecting its population--not more, not less.

California, however, has in recent elections weighed in after the races have been decided, and the state’s voters have justifiably felt that they have had no say in the process.

But a June primary does not necessarily mean any dilution of California’s power. Certainly a scenario could be conceived where the other states have essentially split their votes and the nominees are tied going into California, as in the 1972 Democratic primary. California would then get to cast the deciding votes, and voters here would feel that they had a greater role in the outcome. There are no guarantees.

Similarly, California is not necessarily buying itself additional power by advancing the date. Winning the nomination is a function of an infinite number of variables--including, not necessarily in order of importance: money, the underlying quality of the candidates, the country’s economic and political climate, strategy, the opinions of the media and fortuity. To assume that a change in timing will alter the outcome is to assume that these factors are immutable and unchanging. They are neither.

What if, for example, California had committed the bulk of its delegates to Gary Hart in March, 1988, and the visit with Donna Rice had been revealed a week later? California perhaps would feel as if it hadplayed no role in the selection of the actual nominee. Not everything in politics goes according to plan.

The benefit of moving up the California vote also depends on the strategies adopted by candidates and their consultants. Perhaps the best-financed will choose to skip New Hampshire and Iowa in order to avoid the possibility of an insurgent upset by a candidate short on money but long on committed volunteers. Or perhaps the candidate will skip California and focus on the “Super Tuesday” collection of primaries in the South--particularly a Southern candidate. Changing the rules may just give candidates and campaign consultants a new backdrop for clever new strategies.

All of this also assumes that the other primary and caucus states will remain where they are on the schedule. These states will not take kindly to California’s effrontery. Efforts will be undertaken to win back that disproportionate power. Who knows where California may end up when the hopscotch is over.

Pundits warn that it will hurt candidates with limited resources to face a state like California so early in the primary. Again, that is hard to predict. Remember, Iowa and New Hampshire still will precede California by only a month; as the first caucus and the first primary, they still will receive intense media scrutiny. The disproportionate power those states have will no doubt continue. Given the very close proximity of their contests and the free media exposure for the winners, the results in New Hampshire and Iowa may well spill over into California, amplifying the power of those two allegedly unrepresentative states. If a dark horse does well in Iowa and New Hampshire, he or she may get a “bump” and do well in California without spending much.

California cannot be blamed for trying to increase its power by moving up. If the game is played this way, California has every right to try to grab as much power as it can.

But the game should not be played this way. States should not be left with power and influence disproportionate to their populations. The problem is the manner in which the process takes place. When the primaries are spread over months and across the country, disproportionate power somewhere is possible--if not inevitable.

To avoid that, the best system is a single, national primary or, at the very least, a series of regional primaries. With a national primary, certain candidates still may be favored. But no state or region is either favored or foreclosed. The jockeying for position and power is avoided.

Predicting the outcome of a California primary move may be difficult. But the evidence suggests that it will mean little in terms of increasing the state’s influence and even less in terms of national fairness and true reform.