With current economic conditions leaving just about every expenditure on the chopping block, it is not difficult to fathom our leaders going so far as to raise the ax over a basic American right such as voting. But, like it or not, it's happening.
Several states have opted to cancel their 2004 presidential primaries. Some say they can't afford the millions of dollars it costs to hold an election, while others claim primaries are mostly formalities.
Presidential primaries are vital to the entire voting system, as they allow parties to see which candidates have the public's support. Without primaries, a party might nominate a candidate who wouldn't be the best to serve the people. This would render the entire election process useless.
So far, the Republican-controlled legislatures in Kansas, Colorado and Utah have dropped their 2004 primaries. Arizona and Missouri tried to jump on the no-primary bandwagon, but Democratic governors chose to veto the bill or restore primary funding. But the issue isn't quite a simple division between conservatives and liberals.
Many Democrats are joining the cause in order to save big money, with Democratic-controlled states such as Maine and New Mexico moving to drop their primaries.
The primaries in East Lansing recently were slashed, but for a good reason. East Lansing primaries weren't effective because they were held when a large portion of the population was not present.
Typically, less than 10 percent of registered voters in East Lansing cast ballots in primary elections. Dropping the August primaries, except on presidential years, will save the city money but, more importantly, allow students to participate directly in their city by voting in November.
But presidential primaries are a different story. In Michigan alone, more than 1.2 million votes were cast in the 2000 presidential election primaries. Dumping the primaries would take away this privilege for more than 1.2 million people who choose to exercise their democratic rights.
The primaries are especially important for potential swing states such as Michigan. By holding primary elections, parties will get a clearer picture of which candidate to rally behind by finding out who the public supports.
If funding is a major factor in the axing of primaries, then states should be more creative in seeking ways to save cash. Any election is an expensive process, but all are a fundamental American right. There are other ways to reduce costs and save money than simply cutting out primary elections as a whole. Perhaps legislatures could trim election costs by promoting online voting.
Besides, government officials have been telling the public recently that the economy finally is stable and making a turn for the better.
If this is true, then cutting a basic government function such as primary elections shouldn't be necessary at all.
Every organization, program and service has been threatened with budget slashes since the economic recession a few years ago. But the hatchet-swinging has gone too far once it starts aiming at the presidential primaries. A basic American right such as this is too close to our hearts to be cut.
