Several states have moved to drop their presidential primariesnext year, worried about costs in still-tight financial times andwondering if the political exercise would serve any purpose.
Some say they can't afford the millions of dollars it costs toput on an election. Others say the decisions reflect the lopsidednature of modern primaries: The front-runner gets anointed by themedia and campaign donors after the first few state primaries andthe rest of the primaries are formalities.
The decisions add fuel to the argument that the primary systemis in dire need of repairs. In most states forgoing a primary,party-run caucuses will be used instead to choose delegates to thenational conventions.
''Fewer voters will participate because (caucuses) are morecomplex,'' said Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for theStudy of the American Electorate. State politicians are freezingout average voters, he said, because caucuses bring ''lowerturnout, and more advantage to whoever's organized.''
Primaries usually don't get turnout much higher than 20 percentof registered voters, but they're better than caucuses. InMissouri, the 2000 primary brought 745,000 people to the polls,while the 1996 caucus brought 20,000, the state Democratic Partysaid.
So far, Kansas, Colorado and Utah -- all withRepublican-controlled legislatures -- have canceled their state-run2004 primaries. Republican legislatures tried unsuccessfully todrop primaries in Arizona and Missouri, but Democratic governorseither vetoed the primary bill or restored the funding.
Some Democrats complain that cutting primaries hurts themespecially, with their crowded field of candidates. President Bushhas no challenger.
Other Democrats, however, are pushing to get rid of primaries.Maine dropped its presidential primary for next year, and NewMexico effectively did -- it passed a law allowing parties to holdcaucuses, and then Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson set an earlyFeb. 3 caucus (June primaries will go on for other elections).
Washington Gov. Gary Locke, head of the Democratic GovernorsAssociation, is calling a special session to discuss scrapping hisstate's primary next year.
''Why waste $7 million of scarce state money?'' Locke said.Democrats in Washington state are using precinct caucuses inFebruary to allocate national convention delegates, making theMarch 2 primary pointless.
Money worries have just exacerbated already existing doubtsabout the front-loaded nature of the primaries, officials andexperts said.
''It started to snowball,'' said Leslie Reynolds, executivedirector of the National Association of Secretaries of State.''We're spending all this money, we don't have an impact on theprocess, and people aren't coming because they don't feel they havean impact.''
''Clearly, the process is flawed,'' said Massachusetts Secretaryof State William Galvin. ''The country is only now beginning towake up to the fact that there's a primary. Active Democrats areonly now focusing on it. Average voters aren't focused at all. Andthat's not good.''
Gans said the changes aren't all bad. A turn to caucusesstrengthens person-to-person politics, rather than the TV-driven,mass advertising campaigns that mark big primary days like SuperTuesday, when 11 states vote at once.
Galvin, a Democrat, worries instead that the anti-primary pushin GOP-controlled states is an effort to stop any criticism of Bushfrom within his party. ''They don't want a president on the ballotwhen people can come out and make a protest,'' he said.
But Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman at the Republican NationalCommittee, said the decisions have been made by the states, not thenational party, and for them cost is the main concern.
''There's no reason to spend the money when it isn'tnecessary,'' she said.
In some states where the government has chosen not to hold theprimary, the state Democratic Party has decided to conduct oneanyway and bear the cost itself.
South Carolina's Democrats are struggling to raise an estimated$500,000 for their Feb. 3 contest. Utah's Democrats also want theirvoters to have a say.
''We want to show the Utah Legislature they were wrong and thedemocratic process is alive in Utah,'' said state party chairmanDonald Dunn.