There is a special magic to the thought of participating in my first presidential election. The novelty of political efficacy is still quite fresh for me, and over these past few months, I've relished the ongoing drama of the campaigns, of the debates and of the calls for change, strength or hope. I look forward to casting my vote in the California primary Feb, 5.Then again, perhaps I've romanticized the whole process. By the time this article goes to print, the field of viable candidates for the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations will have narrowed considerably, and the front-runners will likely be well on their way to securing their nominations-some seven months before the nominating conventions in late August and early September. It used to take months for the primaries to nail down the nominees for the presidency; in 1968, doubt about the Democratic nomination persisted all the way to the convention itself. But in 2004, Sen. John Kerry had essentially locked down the nomination by the middle of February. This trend is largely the result of individual states jockeying for political power by moving their primaries up ahead of those of other states, the logic being that if your primary comes first you can affect the results of the primaries that follow.

In the mad rush to be first in the nation, the primaries have evolved into an unfair mess that disenfranchises voters in later states and robs us all of the opportunities provided by a longer primary season.

The Iowa caucus came this year on Jan. 3, and the New Hampshire primary on the 8th; the primaries are so early and so compacted together that it is conceivable that a candidate could ride a victory in a single state to victories on "Super Duper Tuesday" -when 24 states, including California, will hold their primaries --and thus to the party nomination. The natural momentum that a candidate develops over the course of a campaign is expected, but primary-hopping from victory to victory is not in the spirit of the contest. A single loss by any candidate can derail his entire campaign because he is not able to recover in time for the next primary contest. Furthermore, a prolonged primary season gives voters the opportunity to hear more from the candidates vying for the nomination before coming to a decision, an important vetting process. Voters in states with later primaries have no real say because the challengers to the party front-runner have, by this point, either dropped out or lost any real chance of attaining the nomination.

A more fair-minded primary season would last several months and protect voters from the front-loaded steeplechase currently in place. The Rotating Regional Primary System, proposed by the National Association of Secretaries of State, is perhaps the most promising proposal currently on the table. Though it retains Iowa and New Hampshire's "first-in-the-nation" status, the NASS plan mandates that primaries and caucuses would be grouped by region, with each region voting one after another on or soon after the first Tuesday in March, April, May or June. During the next election, the region that voted in March four years prior would then have to wait until June. Though somewhat complicated, the plan is fair to every state in the sense that every state gets the chance to influence the race, while still protecting states with later primaries by prolonging the race and allowing for more reaction time by second-place candidates.

Other alternatives exist. The Graduated Random Presidential Primary System, or the California Plan, would divide the primary season into 10 two-week periods where every period contests more electoral votes than the one preceding it. The Delaware Plan would again divide the primary season into four groups, this time based on population, with the least populous states voting first and the most populous voting last-so that candidates might be able to get their campaigns off the ground in a small state at the beginning, but by the end the big states would still be able to help determine a winner due to their sheer size.

All these alternatives merit investigation, as they would all, in the end, be favorable to the top-heavy primary race the voters must currently endure. There is no reason every voter cannot have an equal impact on this most important of elections. Our primaries should be structured to best ensure that all Americans' voices can be heard.