Primary fix-it kit

Dallas Morning News | Carl P. Leubsdorf:

“Headlines from the latest Democratic Party commission focused on the fact that foes failed to kill the traditional role of the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary in picking presidential nominees. But the real news may have been the launching of what could become a serious bipartisan effort to fix the system's two worst problems: the front-loading that denies most voters a meaningful role and the rush toward holding ever earlier primaries or caucuses.”

This column is closer to a straight news piece than an opinion piece. Mr. Leubsdorf doesn't offer his own opinion of what should be done. For that, the column gets a thumbs-down.

America could solve both so-called problems with the primaries (earlier and earlier primaries and unfair influence by early primaries) by holding a single national primary later in the season. I give this suggestion zero chance of being adopted. I'm not sure even I am in favor of it.

Yet, it is logically inconsistent that America accepts a one-day national election to choose our President but insists on staggering the primaries state by state over several months. If staggered primaries are good for choosing party candidates, shouldn't staggered national elections be good for choosing our President? Conversely, if it's fine to pick a President in a one-day, winner-take-all election, why isn't it also good to pick a party candidate the same way? I am in favor of consistency.