Why should I vote in the Presidential Primaries?

It's that time of year again, that special time that comes only once every four years and no, I am not talking about the Olympics. I'm talking about Presidential Primary Season. Now I will admit, last season (2008) was a bit more interesting because you had no incumbent who could run so both sides had to fight it out in the primary process. This time we only have one side to focus on, the GOP. Obama is running in primaries as well, yes the Democrats are also going through the process, but when a sitting President decides to run it is only on rare occasion that a rival steps up to make a stand. In recent history only Ted Kennedy has made any real attempt to unseat a sitting President and that was in 1980 when Carter was in office. In fact, Obama is only running against "uncommitted" as a rival as nobody on the Left seems to think he should be replaced with enough zeal to make a run at him.

Constitutionally, primaries mean nothing. They were put in place by the party system as a mechanism to 'qualify" candidates for ballots representing the party and the platform they profess. However, the candidate picked will help shape that platform moving forward at the very least, for the remainder of the election season. The realities of the day make it difficult for anyone to run for the White House without going through this process sponsored by one of the two major parties. Not to be outdone, several smaller and less influential parties, pick their candidates by convention without the primary process, which is where the candidates for the major parties will ultimately be chosen should the primary process not select an obvious winner for the party.

It's the "qualifier" rounds that are most interesting because they really don't pick a winner, instead they select those not worthy of the candidacy. Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina being first in the nation opportunities for candidates to make their cases play an important roll not so much in choosing the candidate as much as washing out the less desirable to the party among them.

The qualifier rounds sniff out the dirt, sometimes by the thimble full, other times by the dump truck load and spread it out for voters to see. But those without baggage can also be removed from the process simply by not having the ability to sell themselves and their ideas. Herman Cain would be a good example of the first idea and Michelle Bachman the second. Others will continue to stay in the battle no matter the slings and arrows thrown at them because they have the money to continue the fight. This does not however mean they stand a chance it only means they are wanting to continue to try to define the message and the debate. This is where you come in.

Like I said above, this is where you come in. Candidates who are showing low in the polls but have a message or a single subject on which they are running still need support to get their message out there. Ron Paul filled this role extremely well in the past with his constant calls for the Federal Reserve to be audited, something many of the other candidates now profess to agree with. But had Paul not been able to raise the money needed to stay in the race this time and last time around when he ran as an independent, it likely would not even have made its way into the lexicon of any of the other hopefuls.

Single issue candidates are rare in the final analysis but their impact on the larger national conversation is hard to dismiss. Ross Perot in the 90's brought focus to spending although the conversation fell flat immediately after Clinton's election, did motivate a march towards a balanced budget even if only on paper. Is there any doubt Cain's 999 plan did not add to the discussion about our tax code and the need for reform? All of the front runners this time around have had to produce policy papers on the tax code as a result.

The point is that your support of these "also running" candidates is that the more support they get the more their message becomes part of the discussion, even if they themselves are not viable in the long run. This isn't meant to suggest these are all single issue candidates, just that a particular part of their message catches traction more so than others and those single issues tend to define them.

Primary turnout also gives Washington a signal. It allows policy makers to judge the mood of the people and spells out much of what they will need to focus on in the coming years. Hillary Clinton did not win the 2008 Democratic nomination for the White House, but her signature issue, the one for which she caught a ton of grief during her husband's administration, was enhanced by her very presence and culminated in Obamacare just a year later, much as Ross Perot's influence helped bring about 4 years of balanced budgets under a Gingrich ran House of Representatives while Bill Clinton was in office.

Another reason for your involvement is the importance of your vote during primaries vs. the impact your vote has on the General Election. I found a great chart (http://www.american.edu/spa/cdem/upload/csae080519.pdf) showing the correlation between Primary and General Election turnout. Your Primary vote is two times more powerful because less than half the voters vote in primaries.

That is important to remember. Washington DC knows those who vote in primaries are trying to send them a message as much as pick a candidate. They pay attention even if they move slowly at times.

Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, a Libertarian of a Socialist, it's your country. These are your parties, even you independents who in many cases can vote in party primaries, and you have the power to mold the debate around what matters to you.

But what would I know; I'm just an Average American.