embers of the Democratic National Committee meeting in Washington today should listen once and look twice if they are to give citizens a greater role in selecting their president.
Listening to an impressive range of witnesses would give the DNC well-thought-out suggestions for making the 2004 nominating process far better than the one that begins in just over two months.
Looking at the current campaign, with its massive front-loading of expensive big-state primaries early in the nominating season, proves the need for major changes. Voters are not served by a system that has already shucked half a dozen credible candidates and discouraged others before a single vote has been cast.
The DNC's second look should be in a mirror. Difficulties have been building because no one has wanted to challenge a state's right to set its own primary whenever it wants. Nearly everyone understandably abhors the idea of Congress stepping in and dictating the calendar. But there is one other possible solution: for the two major parties themselves to exercise more control.
The national parties already have the power because of their ability to judge who will be seated as delegates. To date, the Democrats have been more reluctant than the Republicans to take on this responsibility. If that started to change today, it would not be soon enough.
A bipartisan proposal from the states' secretaries of state will be presented today by William Galvin, the Massachusetts secretary. It calls for four regional primaries - one per month after Iowa and New Hampshire start off the process. It would be a big improvement.
Curtis Gans, director of the Committee to Study the American Electorate in Washington, argues for an even stronger party rule: allowing no more than three states to hold primaries on any one day. ''It is not beyond human invention to spread them out,'' he says.
The fine points can be debated, but it is clear that the primaries must be later and better spread out. The parties need to take charge.
