The race to succeed President Bush in the 2008 election has been touted as exciting, if not revolutionary, and a chance for young people to be louder than ever before. Yet despite these hopeful claims, we should not ignore the many faults of our nominating process, parts of which are both irrational and antiquated. While it is encouraging to see that Super Tuesday may empower people whose votes would have previously gone unnoticed, there are persistent issues that need to be addressed if we are to have a truly democratic primary system.

This year’s election cycle will be the closest we have ever come to a national presidential primary. On Feb. 5, people in more than 20 states will cast their votes for the nominees of the Democratic and Republican parties, and these primaries and caucuses will serve to elect about half the delegates at each party convention. The effect is that more people will have an opportunity to vote while the nomination is still contested. Although there have been Super Tuesdays in the past, this agglomeration of nominating contests is unprecedented, so much so that it has ignited the search for a new way to describe the event. Super Tuesday has yielded to Super Duper Tuesday, Mega Tuesday, and The Tuesday of Destiny.

The structural improvements to the calendar have been met with an impressive response from the voters themselves. A longer campaign has allowed for numerous debates, each one an opportunity for greater scrutiny and distinction between the candidates. The CNN/YouTube debates that featured questions by video straight from the voters leveled the playing field between the pedestrian and the pundit, if only briefly. In the so-called billion dollar election, candidates have collected millions in small contributions from many newly-inspired contributors. More importantly, in every contest thus far, we have seen substantial increases in voter turnout, in some cases at record levels.

Unfortunately, these common observations of progress obscure the severe structural flaws in how our nominees are chosen. These failings stem from the needlessly complicated voting process as well as the unfair nature of when the votes are cast and how they are counted.

Without excusing the failure of many to vote, we recognize significant obstacles to registering and obtaining absentee ballots. Both processes are complicated by the particular nature of American federalism, under which each state has its own election laws. Although each state holds the same election for presidential nominees, they differ considerably with respect to deadlines, requirements, and necessary proofs of residency. These distinctions even extend to determining who is allowed to participate. Same day registration, which dramatically simplifies the voting process, is available only in a few states. States with closed contests exclude independent voters, while those using the outdated caucus system prohibit absentee voting, leaving out-of-state college students unable to participate.

The nominating calendar also remains a source of inequity. This year, inevitable competition between states for coveted early spots has been particularly damaging. The Democratic National Committee sanctioned Michigan and Florida for scheduling their primaries before Feb. 5. With these states stripped of their delegates to the convention, 2.2 million people who voted were effectively marginalized. The Republican Party also sanctioned these and other early primary states, cutting their
number of delegates in half.

Michigan and Florida were not unique in their desire to vote earlier. Nearly every state yearns for the power of Iowa and New Hampshire—these two states, the self-appointed arbiters of would-be presidential fitness, possess undue electoral power. Year after year, their early polls weigh disproportionately on the national nomination process, with the power to make or break front-runners or dark horses. As a result, great pressure is exerted on candidates who do not perform well early on to bow out even before the overwhelming majority of voters get their chance to decide. The media only compounds this problem by giving leading candidates a near-monopoly of coverage, while overlooking those trailing in the polls. Super Tuesday voters are now left to choose from the winnowed field of candidates inherited
from the earlier states.

Even when all the ballots have been cast, the preferences of the electorate are further filtered by the respective party hierarchies. At the conventions, select party leaders and elected officials have the privilege of voting independent of the results of any nominating contest. These super or un-pledged delegates reflect the party elites’ desire to retain a degree of control over the process, as when it was dominated by political bosses in smoke-filled rooms.

Many voters are rightly discouraged by these and other problems that still remain in electing the presidential nominees. However, we reiterate that the limitations of the voting system do not legitimize a lack of participation. What merit we have found in the improvements to the primary process this year will be invalidated if voters do not continue to turn out. In an election apparently about change, we hope that voters seek it, both in their candidates as well as the process.

Allon Brann is a Columbia College sophomore majoring in history. Alastair Shearman is a senior in the School of Engineering and Applied Science majoring in environmental engineering. The authors are the publisher and general manager of
the Columbia Political Union.