PRIMARILY, A BAD IDEA

PRIMARILY, A BAD IDEA
Los Angeles Times: For those who think that presidential election campaigns begin too early, just wait until 2004. The ruling body of the Democratic Party is on the verge of making the primary circus even more ludicrous by holding the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary earlier than ever, on Jan. 19 and Jan. 27 respectively. Somebody must stop the Democratic National Committee before it commits this ridiculous act.
Even worse, the committee is also expected to eliminate the present five-week-long no-primary buffer following the New Hampshire balloting. In 2000, the Granite State's first-in-the-nation primary was held on Feb. 1 and no other primaries were allowed until the first week in March. The idea was to slow the rush to the start of the primary season so that the party's presidential nominee would not be decided within a five-week stretch so early in the year. California joined about 20 other states in moving their primaries up to March 7 so they could have some role in picking the party nominee. In fact, however, it was all over before the California vote was counted.
Now, Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe wants the candidate picked early so Democrats will have plenty of time to get over any intraparty fighting in the primary season. That, McAuliffe told columnist David Broder, would allow Democrats to mobilize money and manpower for "a tough fight against an incumbent with unlimited finances," presumably President Bush, who probably would have no competition for the Republican nomination.
The McAuliffe plan almost guarantees that the Democratic nominee would be chosen by the middle of February, five months before the national convention and almost nine months before the general election.
Convention delegates: States hold primaries and caucuses to select their delegates to the national conventions. Republicans tried to fix the system in 2000, but the effort failed at the national convention. If the Democrats adopt the McAuliffe plan at a meeting in January, Republicans in most states probably will go along with the changes rather than be faced with holding separate primaries.
The new schedule would favor well-known candidates such as Al Gore and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and work against lesser lights who lack an established fund-raising base. It would make it even more difficult for voters to get to know the candidates, although it seemed at times in 2000 that we had seen and heard more of them than we ever wanted to.
Maybe the plan will backfire and the Democrats will be deadlocked all the way to the convention. That could put some excitement back into the election process and make the winner an even stronger and more experienced candidate for the fall contest. One can hope.