Opinion: Will Pennsylvania’s Primary Count?

by Victoria A. Brownworth

Pennsylvania is a key swing state for the general election. Yet you’d never know it from where we stand in the primary lineup.

Only four states have more delegates than Pennsylvania–California, Texas, New York and Florida. Yet except for Florida, none of them will have held their primary before Pennsylvania. The most populous and diverse states in the nation will be voting in the final months–New York on the same day as Pennsylvania, Texas at the end of May and California in early June.

Yet states with far less diversity and far fewer delegates are deciding party nominees. Thirty-eight primaries will be held before Pennsylvania’s.

Why?

This year the primary will be April 24. The only way the decision in the Republican primary won’t have already been decided by then is if Newt Gingrich and/or Rick Santorum decide to go for a brokered convention and floor fight as they have implied they will.

If I were a registered Republican, I’d be as angry about the nominee being decided before I ever got the chance to cast my vote as I have been in the past as a registered Democrat. The Pennsylvania primary is held too late to matter in the majority of national and presidential elections. 

A typical example of this was the 2004 presidential primary. John Kerry was chosen as the Democratic nominee after only three primaries. In that race, I supported Howard Dean, the only anti-war candidate running. Dean was also the candidate who started the kind of net roots organizing that Barack Obama was later given credit for. Dean had established the first civil unions for same-sex couples in the country and he had, as a physician, maintained the importance of a nationalized health care system. Dean was a progressive, Kerry, a centrist.

I still voted for Dean in the primary, because he was on the ballot, but that vote was a protest vote. He’d been out of the race for months by the time the Pennsylvania primary was held.

Were I a Republican, I would have chosen Jon Huntsman in the current race. I had, in fact, considered changing parties briefly to vote for him this year (in another one of my primary protest votes) because he’s anti-war, knows China inside and out (he was Obama’s ambassador to China until he resigned to run for president), is pro-marriage equality, believes in science and global warming and is a whiz at finance. All of which made him more of a Democrat than our current president.

But Huntsman–who, like Dean, was the best of the contenders–is long gone.

In 2008, Pennsylvania Democrats were fortunate that the primary race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was still so close by April, because that year the Pennsylvania vote made a difference. Hillary won Pennsylvania handily, which pundits later asserted made it easier for Obama to win in the general election against John McCain–the voter turnout in the primary had been the largest in the state’s history.

Why? Because Pennsylvania matters. It was Pennsylvania that cinched the election for Obama in 2008 as it did for Bill Clinton in 1992–that’s how important the state is.

Unlike the first few states–Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina–that usually determine who the nominees for either party will be, Pennsylvania is diverse. The state has a large demographic of people of color, working-class and poor voters, as well as a large swathe of rural voters. Pennsylvania has a large number of younger voters, as was evidenced in the youth vote for Obama in 2008, as well as a significant demographic of older voters and more female than male voters.  

A key factor delineating Pennsylvania’s importance in national elections is that the state is almost evenly split between Democratic and Republican voters. Yet because Republicans always vote and Democrats don’t–which is why we have a Republican governor and Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter was replaced by Republican Sen. Pat Toomey – no one can ever safely call how Pennsylvania will vote in a presidential election.

Hence the swing state moniker. The number of electoral college votes Pennsylvania holds means the state is a must-win for any presidential hopeful.

Pennsylvania is so pivotal, that in the discourse over who will be the running mate of Mitt Romney, the likely Republican nominee, Sen. Pat Toomey’s name has already been placed on the short-list. Toomey is seen as being the kind of fiscal conservative who would bolster the economic focus of Romney’s campaign while also having the conservative cultural credentials of former PA senator, Rick Santorum, but without having to talk about it non-stop. And he brings Pennsylvania with him.

So if Pennsylvania is considered one of a handful of must-win swing states, then why is the primary so late? Why are primaries held on different dates? No other western nation drags out the election process the way the U.S. does. Those of us paying attention to the current Republican primary battles are hearing familiar refrains to those Democrats heard in 2008: “wrap it up,” “seal the deal,” “time to withdraw,” “hurting the party” and so forth.

A shorter primary season would vitiate the contentiousness that seems to arise regardless of party affiliation when debates and battles within a particular party go on too long. In 2008 we were told Hillary was “wounding” Obama with the long debate season. That she was ahead in the popular vote seemed not to matter. In 2012 we’re told Mitt Romney is being wounded by Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. The only wound to anyone in a primary is in not giving every voter the chance to voice his or her vote.

It’s my contention that primaries should be held at the same time, just like the general election. A federal primary day would focus voters’ attention and also level the playing field for candidates. When the current election season officially  launched with the first primary on January 3, the Obama team said they needed to raise a billion dollars in campaign funds. The retinue of Republicans–formerly a field of nine–would then need to raise an equivalent amount to compete against the incumbent.

That’s an obscene amount of money and doesn’t even take into consideration the money raised by PACs on either side, which are no longer limited in the amounts of money they can raise and spend.

Shortening the primary season by setting a single primary day–in April or May when the weather is good nationwide–would optimize the process and give voters more choices. It would also mean that less wealthy candidates could run for president. As it stands now, the wealthiest candidates are the ones most able to promote themselves and their campaigns. A single primary day would obviate the need for as much advertising, which would mean less money spent overall.

It’s also important for primaries to be real primaries. Like many other leftists, I had hoped a true progressive candidate would emerge to primary President Obama. None did. And as usual, Pennsylvania has refused to allow third- party progressive candidates on the ballot.

In addition, Pennsylvania is one of the states that restricts primary votes to party affiliation. You can only vote for candidates in the party with which you are registered. That, too, is wrong. Voters need more choices, not fewer. There should be less restrictions to voting.

If Pennsylvania is such an important battle ground state, then it’s time for us to be in true contention from the outset in the voting process. By 2016, Pennsylvania needs to make the bid for a date change in its primary scheduling. For decades Pennsylvania voters have been forced to play by the rules of smaller, less diverse and less proportional states. Pennsylvania voters deserve better.

What’s more, American voters should all get the same choices, whether they live in Iowa, where the first primary is held in January, or Utah, where the final primary of the season is held at the end of June–right before the conventions.

It’s not just presidents we are voting for, after all. Tied to the presidential primaries are many other elections–some national, like Senate and House seats–and some local, like Attorney General in Pennsylvania. If voters feel the choices are made before they ever get to the voting booth, they have no incentive to vote. It’s time to change the primary system so that one person, one vote actually means we all get the same choices, not just the leftovers from Iowa and New Hampshire. We all deserve the right to choose from the whole menu, rather than have voters in other states decide our candidates and our future.

Follow me on Twitter @VABVOX and follow my political blog at www.victoriabrownworth.com