Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, March 2, 1994 TAG: 9403030018
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Even after making a discount for the likelihood that few loyal Republicans would (or should) take part in the affairs of the other party, it was still a disappointingly light turnout for the Democratic councilmanic primary, the first in a quarter of a decade.
Disappointing, but not surprising - nor, let's keep in mind, nearly as light as would've occurred if the Democrats had chosen the alternative nominating method, a mass meeting.
It isn't difficult to decipher why primaries draw more involvement than mass meetings.
For a primary, depending on how far you live from your precinct's polling place, it's a matter of spending five, maybe 10 minutes to get there, vote, then get on about your business.
For a mass meeting, if a nominating contest is spirited, it can mean spending a whole evening or much of a weekend in a stuffy meeting room, being herded around, listening to political speeches.
That's a choice?
Local Democratic leaders may have had their own reasons for the decision to go with a primary this year, but it was the right decision. We congratulate the winners: Wyatt Harvey (update), now the Democratic nominee to fill the remaining two years of the seat made vacant by former Vice Mayor Bev Fitzpatrick's resignation this past fall, and White Edwards Harris Trout (update), now the party's nominees for the three four-year terms that soon to expire.
Having been nominated by a process that ensured broader participation than just the organized interest groups who often dominate mass meetings, those candidates now head toward the May 3 general election with a greater credibility than they otherwise would have had. They also go into it with the support of those swing voters who, having invested a few minutes to cast a ballot Tuesday, now have at least a slight emotional investment in how well the nominees fare in the general election. That's what a primary can do for a party.
More important, however, is what a primary can do for the health of the body politic. On that score, Roanoke still has a way to go. Two suggestions:
As soon as possible, city Democrats should announce that all contested nominations for local elected offices will henceforth be decided by primaries.
That way, the decision to hold a primary wouldn't hinge - or be perceived to hinge - on the intraparty political maneuvering of any particular moment. Rather, primaries would simply be how things are done: in public, democratically, with as widespread involvement as can be mustered.
City Republicans should do the same.
Typically, the city GOP has fewer candidates for its nominations than the Democrats: This year, for example, John Voit was unopposed for nomination to the two-year seat; as of Tuesday, Jack Parrott and Barbara Duerk were the only GOP candidates for the three four-year seats.
This may reflect a difference in the temperaments of the two parties, or perhaps it reflects their relative strength within the city. In any event, it's hard to see how primaries would reduce the number of candidates the local GOP can recruit, and - by broadening interest in the party - might serve to increase that number.
Roanokers aren't accustomed to local primaries. For that matter, the party and the candidates seemed a bit like deer frozen in a car's headlights, suddenly in the spotlight but not knowing where to turn. The result: a no-forums, no-issues, near-invisible campaign.
Next time, if there is a next time before another 26 years elapses, candidates and constituents both should be more familiar with the notion of primaries to choose party nominees. Primary campaigning and primary voting should come easier.
The answer to low turnouts and low-calorie campaigning isn't to keep primaries rare. The answer is to hold primaries regularly.
Keywords:
POLITICS
by CNB