As the presidential primaries kick into high gear, candidates are well into the arduous process of vying for a spot on their party’s presidential ticket. But do the primaries actually facilitate democracy, or do they just bring undue hardships onto candidates while disenfranchising voters?

With Iowa holding its caucus on Jan. 3, the 2008 presidential election started the earliest in the history of the nation. According to the Washington Post, both New Hampshire’s Primary and Iowa’s caucus were pushed forward due to state laws that require them to hold primaries first.

This scrambling only causes harm to candidates who must hustle to re-evaluate where to campaign and allocate resources.

“If you’re facing a moving chessboard, it’s pretty difficult to know where to make your first move,” Allan J. Lichtman, an American University history professor told to the Washington Post.

The whole democratic process is hampered by states trying to shift their primaries earlier to get a more powerful position. Consequently, the primaries, which according to the Washington Post already discourage voters, accomplish little, but increase voter apathy. It can’t be argued that less voter participation is good in a democracy.

“Moving the primary calendar three weeks doesn’t make this process any more democratic or change the outcome,” said Stephanie Cutter, the communications director for John Kerry in 2004, in an interview to the Washington Post. “It just means that the front-runners will run the table that much faster.”

Third party and weaker Democrat and Republican candidates are shoved to the side by early wins by the main candidates, eliminating many possible candidates from the field before the parties have officially selected their ticket.

But why do states want to push up their elections? The reason is, the earlier a primary is, the more a candidate must campaign in that state and the more power a state holds in an election. To secure an early base of support, candidates must do well in these states; consequently, they must be more responsive to issues in those states while many times neglecting the issues of later states. When was it decided that Iowa and New Hampshire represent the wishes of the rest of the United States? Both are rural states with small populations that only can represent the Midwest and New England. The West, the South, parts of the Northeast and several Great Lakes states are largely ignored along with their own respective issues. This has caused several large states, including California, to move up their primaries. Arguing that democracy isn’t served by allowing several small states so much clout in the election process, the big states movements only exacerbate the issue, causing other states to continue pushing up election dates.

Threats from both the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee have failed to stop the changes directed by the state parties. In the end voters lose interest in the general elections, lesser candidates have a smaller chance of winning their party’s nomination, and candidates in general struggle to make new campaign strategies.

Several solutions have been proposed to help resolve this dilemma, ranging from an abolition of the caucuses to regional primaries involving coalitions of states. The best solution is to hold all the primaries on the same day, towards June or July. The current nomination system would remain unchanged, but candidates would be forced to actively campaign across all states. By placing the date in July, candidates, the larger and the lesser, would all have more time to campaign and make an impression on the people.

We have a set presidential election date, and a set primary date simply makes sense. The argument over which states vote first would longer be an issue and, with a shorter general election, those voters who might become apathetic may just stick around long enough to actively participate in the national election.