By Christopher P. Borick
There is no greater threat to the vibrancy of our political system than the disenfranchisement of voters. Throughout the past two centuries, the struggle for expansion of voting rights has marked some of the most important events in U.S. history.
While many of the most blatant forms of disenfranchisement are in our past, there are more subtle forms that persist to this day. In particular, Pennsylvanians of varied class, race and gender are being denied a vote in one of the most important choices that any American can ever make - the selection of presidential candidates. This denial of the franchise appears to be sealed once again as the state legislature has declined to move the commonwealth's 2008 presidential primary to Feb. 5.
While, technically, commonwealth residents who are registered as Democrats or Republicans can vote in their party's primaries, which are scheduled for next April, there is virtually no chance that either the Republican or Democratic presidential campaigns will be competitive by then. This is because at least 36 other states will have conducted primaries by the time Pennsylvanians get their turn at the candidates.
As in the past, there will in all likelihood be only one candidate in each party still in the race when Pennsylvanians reach the polls on April 22. Simply put, without choice there is no real election.
Among the most common arguments made in favor of leaving the primary in April have been about weather and cost. It is said that a February primary would bring into play the harsh ice and snow of a Pennsylvania winter, and the possibility of voters being unable to make it to the polls. While no one can guarantee perfect weather on election day, it seems voters in cold-weather environs such as New York, New Jersey and even Alaska have opted to brave the weather for a chance at electoral relevancy.
While the perils of February weather entail some probability that a portion of Keystone State voters will not have the chance to cast a meaningful vote in the primaries, the decision to keep the primary in April creates a near 100 percent probability that no Pennsylvanians will have a real say in this matter.
As for costs, it is estimated that a move to a February primary would cost the state's taxpayers $18 million. Such costs are not trivial to the local governments that often bear the financial burden of conducting elections. However, it seems a reasonable price to pay to allow state residents an opportunity to weigh in on the candidates who will square off for the highest office in the land. While it may seem a rhetorical question to ask how much the opportunity to vote is worth, it seems reasonable to argue that a few dollars per voter is not too high a price to pay.
To be sure, if the state legislature moved the commonwealth's primary to a date shared by New York, New Jersey or California, it would not guarantee Pennsylvania a pivotal role in the party primaries. The weeding out effect of the early primaries in states such as New Hampshire and the mammoth size of New York and California may relegate Pennsylvania to a secondary role. However, the debate on the primary move should not be one focused on the strategic value for the state in deciding the party nominees, but on providing commonwealth residents with the most fundamental right a citizen possesses.
Imagine that the date when you got to vote in a presidential primary was determined by the color of your skin, your gender or your income. The outrage would be both extreme and justified. We have come to accept that such personal criteria should have absolutely no role in determining a citizen's chance to equally determine their leaders. But when we lose the chance to cast a meaningful vote in presidential primaries on the basis of our state of residence, there is no outrage from the masses. And isn't it ironic that our residency in the state where American democracy was born is the sole reason that we are excluded from having a real say in who the presidential candidates will be?