Jules Witcover: Democrats: Going from bad to worse

After many years of resisting demands to diminish the preferential treatment of Iowa and New Hampshire in kicking off the quadrennial selection of national convention delegates, the DNC heard pitches from various states to grab an early slice of the action.

As in the past, Iowa will still hold the nation?s first presidential caucuses and New Hampshire the first primary. But sandwiched between the two in 2008 will be one or two other state caucuses, and another one or two primaries on the heels of the New Hampshire balloting.

One argument for the scheme is that while it preserves tradition, the chosen new states will have a stronger voice in selecting the party?s nominee. Allegedly, the outcomes in the earliest contests will have a greater affect on voters? choices in the caucuses and primaries to follow.

Another contention is that instead of the small states of Iowa and New Hampshire setting the pace and drawing the candidates first, others of greater and more diverse populations by race and ethnicity will now be part of the early mix, reflecting a truer representation of the electorate.

Arguing for one of the earlier caucus dates is Michigan, where Sen. Carl Levin has been in the forefront of the demand for change. In the past, it has held a later caucus that has so resembled a primary in the way Democrats vote as to be virtually the real thing.

In the usual caucus, like Iowa?s, voters meet on the selected night and openly discuss their choices, then gather in small groups of like-minded voters to select delegates to the next level in the process. Michigan has held what is known as a “firehouse primary,” wherein voters don?t really caucus and instead just cast ballots without discussion at a firehouse or some other public building.

Michigan argues that, as a major industrial state with a substantial black and working-class population, it should have an earlier impact of the process. Seven other states in the South and West say their own demographic strengths, particularly in the burgeoning Latino population, warrant an earlier say in the choice of the party?s standard-bearer.

All this would be fine except that the trend of more and more states moving to the head of the election-year calendar of delegate selection, known in the trade as “front-loading,” is all wrong. It amounts to an expensive and exhausting rush to judgment that can, and sometimes does, lead to voters? remorse-selecting a nominee who doesn?t look quite so good upon more leisurely reflection.

In 2004, 33 states choosing well more than half the total delegates needed for nomination held their caucuses or primaries in the first eight weeks of the five-month scheduled process. Sen. John Kerry locked up the nomination with such populous states as Illinois, Pennsylvania and New Jersey not yet heard from.

Many Democrats later felt they had not chosen their strongest nominee, and many in the states not voting until as late as June were effectively disenfranchised. Further front-loading of the sort now being considered would only accelerate that rush to judgment.

A much more equitable approach would be somehow to reverse the process by back-loading it with the largest states. That way, it would take any candidate much longer to achieve a majority of delegates and at the same time give such states the decisive voice.

But as long as states seek early primaries and caucuses as the best assurance of having that voice, and of luring the candidates and the millions they and the news media will spend within their borders, they will continue the quest to get to the front of the line, or close to it, in voting for the next presidential nominee.

Jules Witcover, a Baltimore Examiner columnist, is syndicated by Tribune Media Services. He has covered national affairs from Washington for more than 50 years and is the author of 11 books, and co-author of five others, on American politics and history.