America's primary problem

THE NEXT presidential election isn't until November 2008, but a dozen and a half major-party candidates have already announced. With every passing election cycle, candidates jump in earlier and earlier, in part because they see a fund-raising advantage in doing so.

The other reason is that they have to. So many states have moved their own primaries forward that the 2008 nomination battle could be over by mid- to late February. Envious of Iowa's early caucuses and New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary, a number of states have moved their primaries forward. The Democratic National Committee has only encouraged the scramble by calling for a caucus in Nevada just before New Hampshire and a primary in South Carolina just after.

This is madness. A seemingly interminable presidential election season can only narcotize the voting public -- and distract aspirants and their allies from their current jobs. The nation was far better off when the New Hampshire primary occurred deeper into the winter and other states followed over the next few months.

New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner recently told a Globe reporter that he has "a few options" to preserve his state's position, but declined to elaborate on them. He should do what is necessary to stay out front. In the meantime, Congress needs to take steps to impose order on the 2012 presidential campaign -- without sacrificing the valuable retail-politics contest that New Hampshire provides.

The greatest threat to the stability of the primary system for 2008 comes from Florida, where the Legislature and governor have moved their state's primary to Jan. 29. This could set off a chain reaction that could push the New Hampshire primary into mid-January or earlier.

Floridians can hardly argue with a straight face that they have too little influence over presidential politics. Besides, the forward rush entirely misses the benefits of New Hampshire's early primary. "There's a reason why it's here," Gardner said in an interview. "It just grew here. It wasn't artificially planted. You can't replicate a political culture that exists in this state."

It's easy for an elected official in New Hampshire (and for the editorial page of a newspaper that circulates there) to say that the state's traditional position deserves deference. Yet the voters of New Hampshire have handled their responsibility well. Presidential candidates who visit Iowa feel obligated to pledge their fealty to ethanol and agricultural price supports. But candidates need not endorse granite subsidies and mandatory ski instruction -- New Hampshire imposes no such litmus tests.

Instead, the state functions as a giant focus group. Candidates have to handle unscripted encounters with real voters. Politics on this intimate a scale is possible only in a geographically compact state with a relatively small population. In a state as large as Florida -- population 18 million -- any campaign is necessarily fought on television. But New Hampshire's smaller primary isn't just a hurdle for candidates; it offers them an opportunity as well. Lesser-known candidates can gain traction, and have, even if short on money.

Also, because the state's election rules allow independents to vote in either party's primary, the contest has become an important test of candidates' crossover appeal.

The knock against New Hampshire is that its population, like Iowa's, is overwhelmingly white and unrepresentative of the nation as a whole. Yet peculiarities of each state are factored in to the way candidates, pundits, potential donors, and the general public interpret results. When an embattled Southern governor comes in a solid second behind a former Massachusetts senator, as Bill Clinton did in 1992, it's as good as a victory.

Besides, what New Hampshire lacks in ethnic diversity it makes up for in ideological diversity. It is one of only a handful of states that switched from red to blue, or vice versa, between the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. In the last six presidential elections, each of the two parties has won New Hampshire three times.

As long as the parties opt for state-by-state primaries, someone has to go first. To maintain New Hampshire's position in 2008, Gardner may need to defy party rules, as Florida is set to do. The potential punishment -- the possibility that New Hampshire will lose the few convention delegates it elects -- should not deter him. And because Gardner has sole authority to set a primary date, he probably can outmaneuver states that require legislative action to move their primaries.

This is, of course, a ridiculous way to schedule a presidential nomination contest. The obvious alternative, a national primary, would exclude all but the best-financed candidates. A better proposal comes from the National Association of Secretaries of State. It would preserve the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, and four regional primaries would follow on a rotating schedule.

Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin, who heads the panel that drafted the proposal, said Thursday that the association hopes that states will implement the system without congressional intervention. But Galvin himself is beginning to doubt that -- as well he should. Congress should flex its muscle and adopt the proposal for 2012.

The drawn-out presidential campaign is having a noxious effect on the political system. When the Senate took up a comprehensive immigration bill last month, it was widely viewed as the last chance to pass major reforms before the presidential contest makes any intelligent debate impossible.

An election system is a failure if it gets in the way of actual governance. The nation does need a primary system that upholds New Hampshire-style retail politics. But it also has to keep presidential election years from turning into election eons.