As the longest, most expensive and front-loaded primary season in American history is reaching the home stretch, top officials are rightfully looking to implement an alternative to the current arbitrary and untidy nominating process. In Utah, this charge is being led by Utah Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert.

The 2008 elections have been unprecedented in many ways and for many reasons. The restraints of the McCain-Feingold finance reform have made it increasingly difficult to raise money, thus extending the time candidates need to reach their audiences and into their pocketbooks.

Following the 2004 primaries in which 10 states refused to even hold primaries, 39 states held their 2008 primaries before the end of February, whereas only 20 had held them by that time in 2004 and nine in 2000.

The effects of such frontloading are far from innocuous. Simply put, it matters which states are first. They set the pace for the election, create media buzz for the winners and prop up candidates who may have otherwise largely gone unnoticed because of poor fundraising. The very nature of the socially conservative, yet fiscally left leaning nature of the states, which arbitrarily made up the early primary states, played heavily against the then Republican frontrunner Rudolph Giuliani. By the time Giuliani got to a state in which he thought he could compete, he had been reduced to teeing off in debates on Rep. Ron Paul's foreign policy.

On the Democrats' side, the ever-looming issue of the disenfranchisement of the Florida and Michigan delegates came about because the states refused to have their voters marginalized by having a late primary. When they moved up their primaries, the Democratic National Committee enforced the draconian punishment of stripping them of all their delegates. Now the Democratic Party is looking for a solution.

Herbert's plan to fix such situation is not new, nor is it uniquely his own. He is pushing a plan adopted in 1999 by the National Association of Secretaries of State - a group he doesn't naturally fall into, but is still a member because Utah doesn't have a secretary of state. The plan divides the country into four regions and rotates their order every presidential election. Iowa and New Hampshire retain their traditional lead off role, but the Northeast, South, Midwest and West - Utah being the West - rotate the regional lead off position, the 2012 order being determined by a lottery. The primary season would last four months with each election one month apart.

The plan would lessen the marathon feel of the current process and allow candidates to dedicate time to regional issues rather than jumping state to state. Likewise, the rotating primary system would increase voter turnout because each region would have an approximate equal amount of influence (delegate wise) in determining each party's nominee.

The rotating primary system would, however, have some potentially dangerous effects. Dividing the country into four sections creates ideological biases in each of the primaries, and the principal ideology of the lead off region could unnaturally affect the rest of the election. Of the four regions, the Northeast is predominantly liberal while the South is mainly conservative. The Midwest is relatively neutral while the West leans left. If the plan had been in play for the 2008 election and the Northeast would have been first, the election would have taken on a different flavor. The extent to which it would have ultimately changed things, however, is merely speculative.

The American electoral system needs something to change the arbitrary nature in which a few states are able to choose each party's nominee. The rotating regional primary system Herbert is promoting is not perfect, but will mediate many of the adverse effects of the current process.

As of right now, the Republican and Democratic National Committees are scheduled to discuss and vote on this plan at the parties' conventions or shortly thereafter. We encourage them to either accept the plan or at least move toward something similar.

This editorial represents the opinion of The Daily Universe editorial board. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of BYU, its administration or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Copyright Brigham Young University 13 Mar 2008