State has 'virtually no say' in primaries

Pennsylvania will play a pivotal role in electing the United States president in November's general election. However, the state's votes in the April 27 presidential primary election are effectively negligible.

This lack of influence has prompted state officials to look at moving the date of the primary for future elections.

"No one can win the White House without Pennsylvania," said Don Morabito, executive director of Pennsylvania's Democratic Party. But in the primary, "we have virtually no say," and voter turnout tends to be extremely low.

In the presidential primaries, state political parties select delegates who will decide the presidential nominee. Once a single candidate has amassed enough delegates from states around the country -- which experts say will likely be the case by mid-March -- the remaining primaries no longer have an impact on the process.

Iowa and New Hampshire -- the first two states to vote -- are the most influential in the primaries.

Many say that the disproportionate influence of the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire is unfair and argue that the relatively little diversity of the states' voter populations is not representative of the entire country.

The two states have very little impact in terms of delegates, but play a significant role in narrowing the field of candidates.

"When you look at Iowa and New Hampshire, those two states don't add up to Pennsylvania" in terms of the number of voters or delegates they contribute, Morabito said.

Sen. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) dropped out of the race after Iowa, but might have had success in a state like Pennsylvania.

"The current system doesn't make a lot of sense when small states can choose a presidential candidate," Democratic political strategist Ken Snyder said.

"It's frustrating to watch 20,000 Iowans drive a major presidential candidate out of a race without [Pennsylvania] having any say," he added.

"I think it's a tragedy that Dick Gephardt is out" of the race, Morabito said. "I think he would do well in Pennsylvania."

In order to reverse this situation and bring Pennsylvania to the forefront of national politics, Governor Ed Rendell is leading an attempt to move Pennsylvania up in the primary schedule, Snyder said.

Additionally, the District of Columbia, Michigan and other states have attempted to move their primaries up as well.

A Pennsylvania move "would shake up the way primary politics are run," said Chris Patusky, deputy director and chief operating officer at the Fels Institute of Government. "Because it's such a big state, Pennsylvania would become a very important state in the political process."

Patusky said he expects to see a trend of states attempting to move their primaries up in the schedule, thus gaining influence in party politics.

Though Pennsylvanians have little say in the primaries, the state is typically considered a swing state in the general election.

Pennsylvania has voted for the Democratic candidate in the last three elections, but "Bush really wants to win Pennsylvania," said Larry Ceisler, a principal in the political advocacy group Ceisler Jubelirer.

However, he "is going to have to make a broader case for himself other than national security," Ceisler added.

In Pennsylvania -- which has suffered a significant loss of jobs and has been slow to recover from the recent economic slump -- the economy and unemployment, education and health care are important issues, Morabito said.

"From Pennsylvania's point of view, this administration has been a disaster in all three areas," he added.

Morabito said the Democratic nominee should fare well in Pennsylvania this year "if the voters are paying attention. ... The press has done a good job of convincing everybody that everything is alright."

"It's going to be very hard for us to win this election."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.