POLITICS: Are Primaries Necessary?

TO the candidates, the primaries must I loom like some monstrous political version of the Great Wall of China: an awesome structure, stretching on and on, that has never decided a battle. As they campaigned in Wisconsin, the Democratic candidates were already showing serious signs of wear and tear. Yet this was only the fourth primary; there are a staggering 19 still to go.

The system was not designed to exhaust the candidates or bankrupt the party or elect Richard Nixon. But it seems to be doing all three. Around the White House, the least euphoric Republican says he is merely “confident” that Nixon will win. The others are gloating over the opposition’s predicament. While the Democrats have always engaged in intraparty bloodletting, the wounds they are inflicting this year are going to take longer to heal.

Firing Squad. Why have they done this to themselves? One explanation has been offered in another context: when reform-minded Democrats are told to make up a firing squad, they form a circle. The system was set up with the best of intentions. After the disastrous 1968 Chicago convention, which took place in the streets as much as in the amphitheater, the Democrats decided that more people should be drawn into the nominating process. State party organizations were given a choice: either take the caucuses that select convention ‘delegates out of the smoke-filled back rooms and open them to the rank and file party members, or hold a primary.

Many states opted for the primary, since it seemed the easier course. Their choice may also have been guided by the fact that a primary brings a state a lot of attention, an influx of tourists and considerable business. Some $6,000,000, for instance, was poured into Wisconsin by the primary contenders.

But this year’s primaries have not worked out the way they were supposed to. So many candidates have jumped into them that no one has much chance of emerging a clear winner. Even if one candidate in a primary does manage to lead the pack, he will be badly, maybe fatally scarred by his snapping rivals. The pile-up of names on the ballot gave an unforeseen boost to George Wallace, who won in Florida because the vote was split so many ways. Wallace might be contained if some of the liberal or centrist candidates quit the race. But on the eve of Wisconsin, only Vance Hartke, after getting 3% of the vote in New Hampshire and .3% in Florida, has had the grace to get out of a contest he never had a chance of winning.

Despite the cost to a candidate of mounting a primary campaign, compensations in publicity are high. The press lavishes attention on the primaries because they have the ingredients of a suspense story. The press, in fact, has become the unofficial arbiter of the results, deciding who wins and who loses in races where the real meaning of the outcome is bound to be murky. Savoring this new-found power, NBC News Vice President Richard Wald has half humorously suggested that the primaries be held at the convenience of the press: Southern primaries should take place in the winter. Only when the spring thaw begins should reporters have to make the blustery trek north to New Hampshire and Wisconsin.

As they survey the damage, Democrats look back almost nostalgically to 1968, when fewer candidates entered fewer primaries. There were enough contests to test their mettle, but not enough to wear them out. In states that did not hold primaries, the candidate was compelled to deal and dicker with party leaders—another kind of test. That system worked in a rough sort of way, even though it was untidy and became untenable. Much as some of them may like to, the Democrats would have trouble returning to boss rule or even a modified form of it. But what to do to ease the new primary agonies?

One suggestion, made by Senator Mike Mansfield, is to hold a national primary. Under his constitutional amendment, a candidate would have to get 40% of the vote to win. If no one did, there would be a run-off election between the top two vote getters.

Most observers feel that a national primary would be going from bad to worse. It would put a premium on television, since the candidates would not be able to get around the country to see the voters. Direct contact, the one distinct advantage of the present primary system, would be lost. As Jess

Unruh says, “Campaigning straightens out the impressionistic image of the tube.”

A national primary would put relatively unknown candidates at a disadvantage. At the same time, it would be an even greater lure for extremists. If the vote were sufficiently split, there would be no reason why far-out candidates could not finish in the top two positions. The two-party system might soon fracture. The national conventions, meanwhile, would be reduced to nothing more than rubber stamps. For all their defects and dwindling power, the conventions still serve a valuable function in bringing together party stalwarts from all over the country and forcing them to come to a consensus on a candidate and a program.

No Finality. More acceptable is a kind of halfway house: regional primaries. Republican Senator Bob Packwood of Oregon plans to introduce a bill that would include all 50 states in five staggered primaries. States in the same area would all have their primaries on the same day. This would not have the finality of a national primary; if no candidate were to get a majority of delegates across the country, the choice would still be determined by the national convention. An obscure candidate would have a shot at the nomination without having to raise the kind of money a national primary would require. Candidates would continue to be tested without having to get bogged down in petty local issues. A variation on the regional primaries was proposed by Arizona Representative Morris Udall, who will introduce a bill setting three primary dates. A state wishing to hold a primary chooses one of the three; a candidate who enters any of the primaries on one date enters them all.

There are short-term solutions. A state can discard a primary as easily as it sets one up; candidates could come to some agreement to limit the amount of campaigning they do. With the partial exception of Canada, the U.S. is the only Western country that opens party nominations to mass participation. The problem is how far to carry it and how to control it. Says Donald Matthew of the Brookings Institution, who is studying the President-making process: “We Americans frequently assume that the way we do things is the natural way and that everyone else is nuts. In this case, the reverse may be true.”