One primary…once…six months out.

One of the Star’s political pundits — probably Matt Tully — pundificated over the weekend that the idea put forward last week for Indiana to tie its primary to New Hampshire’s was a fabulous idea whose time had come. I’m not going to waste my time finding the column, (edit: Josh Gillespie did that so I didn’t have to) but here’s my take on that:

I disagree. And fairly vehemently.

The whole primary fiasco is a waste of time. It’s a popularity contest, it tells us nothing substantive about the candidates, and — like reporting poll results at 6PM Eastern Time — it has a chilling effect on the latter part of the schedule.

If we want to be fair, there should be ONE primary ballot in ALL 50 states on the SAME day. And I would modestly suggest that the day be exactly six months before the general election (or the 2nd Tuesday in May, which is close enough).

It should also be a capital offense to start campaigning before New Year’s Day, but I digress.

There has been nothing in my experience more butt-numbingly dull than the constant drumbeat of “debates” (which are not debates in the classic sense at all; they are sound-bite generators and one-upmanship contests) that we have put up with since far too early last year. Our presidential candidates should not strive to be rock-star celebrities — indeed, the best candidate for any elected position is generally the man or woman who doesn’t want the job, but is willing to take it to be of public service.

(He said, pointing pointedly at Fred Thompson.)

When we as an electorate demand substance, and demand that our voices be heard fairly and proportionately, then we may have a chance of having decent candidates and substantial leaders. But not until.

A single national primary might help push things in that direction.