THOSE MESSY PRIMARIES WORKED WELL

It was the windup of the most costly, complicated and exhausting round of presidential primaries the U.S. had ever put on. Between 6 a.m. last Feb. 24 in New Hampshire and 8 p.m. last Tuesday in California, some 25 million Americans had voted in 31 primaries--the most ever. By direct vote they chose about 75%--also the most ever--of all the Democratic and Republican delegates who will sit in the nominating conventions this summer. The marathon had cost the candidates and the taxpayers at least $65 million. The process had left many a numb politician and citizen wondering if there is not a better way to choose the people who will run for President.

There is, in fact, a lot to be said for the U.S. primary system, especially if a little more system could be put into it. In 1976 it has clearly designated the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter. It swiftly screened out the least serious Democratic candidates (Shriver, Shapp, Harris, Bentsen). It told two aging warriors (Humphrey, Jackson) to forget about the White House. It gave some national exposure to three interesting Westerners (Brown, Udall, Church). It ended the influence of George Wallace as a national political figure. A very respectable hundred days' work.

On the Republican side, the primaries could not produce a clear-cut winner, and this was a significant result in itself. The primary process made it possible for an ex-Governor who had never held national office to mount a formidable campaign against a sitting President. Whatever the merits and flaws of Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan, it is bracing in a democracy to see the powers of incumbency so effectively challenged. Only yesterday Richard Nixon, John Dean, etc., were dreaming up schemes to "maximize the incumbency."

The 31 state primaries put a premium on at least five qualities that are pertinent to the presidency:

> Physical stamina.

> Organizing ability. The deployment of money, staff and the candidate's own precious time through a 31-primary season is a real test of planning skills, grasp of detail and decisiveness.

> Coolness. The capacity to recover from a gaffe, react calmly to a reverse, adjust to the unexpected.

> The ability to explain, project, sell: by TV, in print, in person; to factory workers, suburbanites, blacks, students, farmers, Southerners, Yankees. Also known as the quality of leadership.

> A sense of humor.

In the last category the hands-down winner among the Democrats was Mo Udall. In all the other categories Jimmy Carter swept the field.

Nobody would claim that the primary process illuminates all the major presidential attributes in character and intellect. It does not tell much about the all-important ability to select and attract talent; primary campaigns can go a long way (Carter, Reagan) with surprisingly small staffs of home-state intimates.

The highest value of the primaries, however, is precisely the one that the reformers hoped for when the experiment was introduced in Wisconsin (1905) and Oregon (1910): broad popular participation in the choice of presidential (and other) nominees, less of a voice for the bosses and machines. The older breed of pros were scornful. Harry Truman called primaries a lot of "eyewash." For years, the state caucuses and conventions and the national nominating conventions remained dominant. The organization people on the floor and in the back rooms, the powerful Governors and state chairmen, though mindful of primary results, generally kept the last word.

One of the first decisive primaries was probably Kennedy's victory over Humphrey in West Virginia in 1960, though J.F.K. entered in only seven states. Goldwater over Rockefeller in California in 1964 was another historic primary, as was McGovern over Humphrey in California in 1972. More and more states have gone over to the primary system in the past two elections. Carter's showing in Pennsylvania was his biggest single day, but his unassailable claim to the nomination is that he entered in 30 out of 31 and won 19. So the primaries, though they will not always produce the final candidate, and will not tell everything the country wants to know about him, have really arrived in 1976 as a continental system, a unique U.S. political invention.

How could the invention be improved? More clarity and equity should be introduced into a bewildering body of law. The frivolous or mischievous crossover should be outlawed; in 13 states it is still possible for a Democrat to vote in the Republican primary, or vice versa, simply because he is bored with the contest in his own party or wants to help the other party choose its weakest candidate. Winner-take-all, still allowed by the Republicans in California and seven other states, should give way to the fairer system, which is proportional representation, or a mixture of p.r. delegates-at-large plus winner-take-all in districts. The Pennsylvania G.O.P. arbitrarily obliges all delegates to run uncommitted. There should be simpler ballots and clearer designation of delegates' affiliations in several states (New Jersey and New York are notorious), where even with "palm cards" voters are not quite sure what they are doing.

One much-discussed reform would be regional voting, in which all the New England states, for instance, would agree to hold their primaries (or conventions) on a single day, then the Southeast would run its primaries two weeks later. Perhaps all regions could be persuaded to concentrate the voting from, say, mid-March to mid-June. This would certainly save the candidates some money and energy, and would lessen spectator fatigue. It might also diminish the chance for publicity flukes and exaggerated attention to relatively minor results. It all has a nice orderly sound and considerable support in Congress. The difficulty is that New Hampshire enjoys leading off all by itself, and California likes the Super Bowl glory at the end. All the states persist in not thinking of themselves as provinces in a region.

The trend probably is toward modest reform and refinements, and even more than 31 primaries in 1980. About the only thing that could change that prospect would be if the hero of the 1976 primaries, the triumphant Jimmy Carter, were to lose in a landslide to a candidate emerging from a brokered Republican Convention. Meanwhile, Jimmy, showing more wit than he is sometimes credited with, says of the primary system: "I think it's an absolutely superb process."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.