The View From Here . . .

By Bob Morgan, Jr.

This is written just before the results of the New Hampshire primary are known. There will be ample time in the next few weeks to handicap the political horserace, which already has produced some surprising twists and turns.

For the present, I think a little constructive criticism of the nominating process is definitely in order.

Basically, the timing of the early primaries and caucuses, which usually produce a party's nominee, is completely skewed. This year's Iowa caucus, which occurred on January 3, is the earliest ever, as is the New Hampshire primary, held on January 8. The major event on the calendar, the mega-primary involving about 20 states, follows just a few weeks later on February 5. By then the two races could well be effectively decided.

This compressed process makes little sense. The nominating conventions are not until the late summer and the election is not until November. There is no particular need to have the party's nominees decided months in advance of the conventions.

Indeed, the process of selecting the nominees this early has a number of disadvantage. First, it forces voters, most of whom do not follow politics all that closely, to make quick judgments as to candidates about whom they know little. (How many voters had heard of Mike Huckabee, or even Barack Obama, a year ago?) Second, it creates a sort of limbo period before the conventions where the nominees are expected to keep in the public eye, but not too much. The limbo period adds to the perception of an endless campaign, with resulting public ennui when the general election campaign begins in the fall. Finally, it magnifies the importance of states like Iowa and New Hampshire whose electorates may not be particularly representative of party voters as a whole.

There are a number of reasons for this crammed method of se-lecting a nominee. States that are traditionally first in the nation contenders, like New Hampshire and Iowa, are willing to move up their nominating events as early as possible to retain their early position.. Other states, eager to remain relevant to the selection process, quickly move up their own primaries as early as possible.

Solutions to this problem do exist, but they will require a signifi-cant degree of cooperation that has not been apparent so far. There probably should be a series of four regional primaries, one in each month from February through May. (The order could be drawn by lot.) The voters would get to know the candidates during the primary process and less successful candidates would likely drop out. Plus, the influence of New Hampshire and Iowa would be trimmed.

Since selection of delegates is largely a matter of state election law, a federal fix (short of a constitutional amendment) may be difficult to come by. However, the parties could enter a compact refusing to seat delegates not chosen in the approved manner. They have already applied sanctions in respect of the Michigan primary this year.

In contrast, the later part of the election process is fairly ra-tional. The two major candidates get nominated during the summer at conventions of their parties, where each makes an acceptance speech and formally chooses a vice presidential running mate. The campaign pretty much begins in earnest on Labor Day. For two months the nominees tour the country, make speeches and usually debate each other and then the election is held in early November.

But while the road from the conventions to the election is relatively straightforward, much work needs to be done on the runup.