In a little more than three months, some of us will be gettingready to vote in the California primary elections. Turnout forprimary elections is already low, especially in the states that votelater, such as ours. While we vote March 2, some states begin votingas early as January. According to The San Diego Union-Tribune, alarge number of states this year have suddenly decided to cancelprimary elections. As replacements, these states will hold caucuses,which involve voters even less. These caucuses are run by parties toelect state delegates. It is clear from this trend that the electoralsystem in our country has become a joke.

The states of Colorado, Kansas and Utah have just decided tocancel elections. While these states had Republican legislatures, NewMexico’s Democratic governor and Maine’s Democratic legislature alsoopted for caucuses in next year’s elections.

One of the reasons to forgo these elections is the millions ofdollars it takes to run a primary election. Washington Gov. GaryLocke spoke in The Union-Tribune of the projected $7 million being awaste of precious money. Washington is considering scrapping nextyear’s primary elections. Many people also feel the election ispurely a formality. As voters in the first group of states cast theirballots, the rest of the country watches and is often influenced tovote for those already winning.

The fact is that the turnout for primaries is so low, and faith inthe system is so weak, the whole process does seem like a waste oftime to many people. Four other states (Iowa, Michigan, Idaho andHawaii) already hold caucuses, according to The Washington Post. Thepoor economy is an easy excuse to quit the formality of primaryelections in favor of a system that usually involves one-fourth thenumber of voters.

There are some who are fighting to hold onto the primary electionsystem. Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed similar legislatures,and Missouri Gov. Bob Holden restored funding to the election. TheDemocratic Party in Missouri cited 745,000 voters participated intheir last primaries, while a 1996 caucus drew only 20,000, accordingto The Union-Tribune.

I’m sure the majority of people in these states are unaffected bytheir lessened power in the electoral process. It seems the generalconsensus is apathetic toward the electoral system. I know that whenI vote in March it will be a formality: I go through the process, soI will have a right to complain when the person I didn’t vote for iselected.

I know many people who, for the most part, do not vote in anyelection, and do not even pay attention to primaries. By the time thepresidential elections come around, the choices have already beennarrowed. At this point, many people in our age group may know littlemore than what is on the campaign commercials. This doesn’t exactlyinspire faith in the electoral system.

As candidates start blending together and elections go by withoutmuch change in the system, democracy can seem to be very much out ofour hands. The lowest turnout for voters is in the age group of 18 to30 years old. Perhaps young people have not decided what theiropinions are, or have too much going on in their lives to get intopolitics.

I don’t think any age group is as inspired by the electoralprocess as it could be. Parties often seem the same; candidates spendmore time smearing each other in negative campaigns than speaking ofplans for their time in office. Even in primary elections, thechoices seem limited. I don’t feel low voter turnout and a generalsense of futility should inspire dismissal of the current system,though. These are clear signals the current system needs a hugeoverhaul.

– Gaia Veenis is a journalism junior.

– This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of TheDaily Aztec. Send e-mail to letters@thedailyaztec.com.Anonymous letters will not be printed – include your name, major andyear in school.