Too Bad This State Has So Little Voice : New Hampshire shines while California fiddles

Every four years New Hampshire throws a terrific political party, to be sure. It was especially interesting this year with Pat Buchanan giving President Bush a run for his money in the GOP primary.

But it’s easy to forget that Tuesday’s voting in that tiny state involved only about 265,000 registered voters. That’s 8% of Los Angeles County’s registered voters. It’s fewer voters than in Orange or San Diego County--or even Ventura County!

So why do the news media descend on New Hampshire’s presidential primary every four years? Because it’s the first in the long election year.

Does New Hampshire, largely white and rural, reflect the diversity of the nation in the way that California, a mega-state with almost 30 times as many people, does? Of course not. Nor should the good people of New Hampshire be expected to. The fault isn’t New Hampshire’s; the fault’s in the process.

Huge and multifaceted California needs to have a greater say in the process of selecting a President--other than providing oceans of cash from prosperous enclaves like West Los Angeles and south Orange County. But to have that greater say, Sacramento needs to act; so far it hasn’t.

Twice in the last two years the Legislature could have moved the date for California’s presidential primary up to early March from June--when, nationally, 85% of the delegates to the nominating conventions have already been chosen. Both times it failed due to political maneuvering in Sacramento, with blame shared by Republicans and Democrats. They couldn’t figure out whether an early primary would be to their selfish political advantage.

In truth, the only reasonable argument against holding a presidential primary in March, instead of June, is based on the likelihood that a second primary for state and local offices would still be held in June, with the general election to follow in November.

Adding a third statewide vote would cost about $40 million, a lot of money in a time of budgetary deficits.

But who’s to say the costs would not be offset by the increased spending that political pros would have to do in the state to get the attention of California voters? Why not consider the cost of an earlier California primary to be a kind of good investment?

An earlier primary would get the average California voter more involved in the election process than now, and that can only work to the benefit of this state.

That should be reason enough for the Legislature to act before the 1996 New Hampshire primary again leaves California in the cold.

California Population: 29,760,021

New Hampshire Population: 1,109,252