Once again, the folks in Sacramento have shown their talent for recognizing a problem and then failing to create a solution. For the last 20 years California's influence in choosing presidential nominees has been limited to writing checks that end up being cashed in other states. According to our politicians, the solution was to move the state's presidential primary from June to February. But thinking that California's ability to attract a presidential candidate's attention hinges on holding an earlier primary is like believing that the key to long-term wealth is the number of credit cards you own. In both cases a quick fix obscures the real problem instead of solving it.

Allowing Californians to vote in February won't change the outcome in November as long as the state remains a liberal enclave. If the Democratic majority in Sacramento truly wants to enhance California's relevance in 2012, it should pray for a surge in Republican registration. Since that probably won't happen, California Republicans should consider whether a new brand of conservatism could be the spark that launches the Golden State back into national prominence. If the fallout from this year's primary "reform" is any indication, it will take more than a cosmetic touch-up for California to become attractive to presidential candidates.
 
Initially, scheduling the presidential primary on February 5th was supposed to be the best of all possible outcomes. The date was the earliest either national party would allow a state to hold its contest without losing any delegates at the nominating convention.  With at least four states holding elections in January, Californians would have the opportunity to judge the viability of a candidate's sales pitch before their nomination had become a fait accompli. The separation of contenders from pretenders would ensure that Golden State voters could cast their ballots based on performance, not just personality. For a time, the selection of February 5th turned all eyes to California. 

The dream died when the allure of being "first" appealed to more than 20 other states. Their inclusion turned California's moment in the sun into just another day at an overcrowded beach. The candidates noticed too, and decided that the best way to maximize their money was to focus on areas where their message could sway the outcome. At first, California had an answer. Instead of the traditional winner-take-all method of awarding delegates to the top vote getter, both state parties decided to use a proportional system. It was hoped that the move would encourage candidates to campaign in areas beyond the usual fundraising bases. Again, the solution misidentified the problem.

Campaigning during a primary serves two functions. The first is to win as many votes as possible to showcase the strength of a candidate's ideas, personality, and organization. The victory tells donors and voters in other states that a candidate is viable and invites them to join the team. The second is to make the contacts necessary for a return trip during the general election. Of course, this assumes that a return trip is warranted.

For all the complaints about Iowa and New Hampshire's disproportionate influence in choosing presidential nominees, their vacillating loyalties are seldom mentioned. Iowa voted for the George W. Bush in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000. New Hampshire went for John Kerry in 2004 and Bush in 2000. Contrast this with California's recent electoral history. In the last two presidential elections the Democratic nominee won by at least 10 percent. The last Republican to win Ronald Reagan's home state was his Vice-President, George H. W. Bush, and even then it was only by 3.5 percent. Four years later, Bill Clinton ushered in California's modern era of double digit support for Democratic presidential nominees, beating Bush by 14 percent.

At the heart of California's angst is the idea that states like Iowa and New Hampshire enjoy a unique view of presidential candidates. The move to February 5th was designed to garner some of that attention, but it's hard to be noticed when standing next to nearly two dozen family members. Disheartened with their collective failure, the more populous states now are clamoring for a national reform of the primary system. One popular proposal would divide the country into four regional groups that would vote in blocs. To ensure fairness, the bloc that votes first in one cycle would vote last in the next, with each bloc moving up the ladder in consecutive elections until the process began anew. The problem is that this kind of enforced equality will likely bring about the end of retail politics.

One of the hallmarks of presidential campaigning is that a person running towards Washington, D.C. must first pass through Middle America. Arriving months before the final votes are tallied White House hopefuls spend several hours a day talking to anyone who will listen about their plans for the country. For some candidates, changing a mind one conversation at a time is the only road to fame and fundraising. The success of a message-driven candidacy hinges on two criteria: a small number of people and a long time to talk with them. Neither is present in California.

With nearly 40 million people in a hurry to be somewhere else, the Golden State seems like an odd fit for retail politics. So does any other state with more than 10 electoral votes. It is difficult to see how dividing the country into four groups of 75 million people helps any state get more attention. If anything, it takes the disappointments of February 5th and imposes them on the entire nation.

The real problem with California is that both parties know where its Electoral College votes are going. For all its diversity, the state is as blue as a Dodger fan in October. The lack of competition drives candidates into electoral markets where voters' political preferences are less concrete. Ideologically, California has little to tell conservatives other than that the state is willing to elect Republican governors eager to regulate everything except abortion. While Governor Schwarzenegger may fancy himself a new breed of post-partisan politician, the rest of the GOP is deafeningly silent when it comes to ratifying his agenda.

It is time for California conservatives to change the way they think about government. The state will continue to be just another line on a presidential campaign's advertising budget as long as the California Republican Party runs its operations like the Texas GOP. The majority of California voters do not support a purely anti-government creed. Most Californians want government services; they just don't like paying for them. Thus, the key to electoral success is convincing the citizenry that a conservatism based on competent government can deliver better results with lower taxes. 

California is the Nation's greatest success story. From William Mulholland to Steve Jobs, we are a relentlessly creative and self-improving people. Yet we regularly accept abject failure and dysfunction in Sacramento. Accordingly, Golden State Republicans must become the party of results.

In education, the goal is to graduate as many students as possible with the skills they need to be successful in life. A child educated in California should be able to read and write at her grade level, and balance a checkbook upon graduation. If her parents want to spend their education tax dollars on private school tuition, they should have every right to do so. It is time to put the focus of our public policy on ends, not means, because people matter more than the process.

If Republicans can couple the electorate's desire for better services with its insistence on lower costs, the nation will take notice. A conservative cause that wins the hearts and minds of the country's largest state will do much to attract the attention of presidential hopefuls from both parties.

It won't be easy. The failures of Republicans in Washington, D.C. to provide even a glimmer of discipline or competence during the last seven years are too numerous to count. Defending them would be pointless, which is precisely why no California Republican should. Beginning in this election cycle, California Republicans can define themselves by more than their opposition to the Democratic legislature. The electorate knows that the process is broken in Sacramento. It knows that a transformation in government practice is needed. Enough backroom deals with Indian tribes. End the practice of suspending the Constitution to distort the budget. Stop supporting initiatives that restrict discretion and resources.

Across the state there is a growing desire for change. Term limits make it impossible for legislators to gain expertise or build a reputation for solving long-range problems. An institutional bias against competitive legislative districts impedes the ability to construct any broad-based consensus. Nevertheless, a California Republican Party driven by a belief in the power of competency can restore confidence in our dysfunctional government. Demanding the same level of competence from Sacramento that most people enjoy at Starbucks is a winning proposition. All that is needed is the conviction to defend the interests of the California taxpayer.

If the California Republican Party could do this, the achievement would have national repercussions. The Democratic Party and its presidential candidates would be forced to defend ground they had previously taken for granted, while Republicans could realistically strategize about winning nearly one-fifth of the Electoral College votes needed to occupy the White House. Candidates from both parties would then give Californians the ultimate campaign prize: face time. If California becomes a competitive state again, it won't matter when its primary is scheduled. Every cycle will be another opportunity for a Golden State close-up.

Ashton D. Ellis has served as a writer for former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and as a research assistant for Texas Speaker Tom Craddick.  He is a native of Riverside, California.