A number of Kansas residents probably are upset that our state won’t have a presidential primary in 2008, but the silly election maneuvers of a number of other states may ease Kansans’ disappointment.

One of the main reasons to have a primary, in Kansas or anywhere, is to encourage more candidates to campaign in your state. Personal appearances increase voter interest and participation in the presidential election and give candidates at least a small opportunity to learn about the issues that affect the state.

Of course, with the increasing number of state primaries, it’s easy for some smaller states to get lost in the shuffle. If a state’s primary is too late in the season or scheduled too close to a flurry of other primaries, it may not get the attention that state party leaders are hoping for.

This year, the incidence of states jockeying for primary position has reached a new high – or low. Last week, Republicans in South Carolina, in an effort to bring more prestige to their 2008 primary made a shift that will throw the primary calendar into chaos.

The original primary and caucus calendar had Iowa in its traditional spot with the nation’s first caucuses on Jan. 14, followed by Nevada caucuses on Jan. 19. Also by long tradition, New Hampshire was scheduled to have the nation’s first primary on Jan. 22. South Carolina Democrats were scheduled to vote Jan. 29 and South Carolina Republicans on Feb. 2.

But Florida put a kink in those plans by moving its primaries to Jan. 29. That conflicted with South Carolina Republicans’ goal to have the first primary in the South. The only answer was to move their primary up to Jan. 19.

This move is expected to set off a further chain reaction. New Hampshire is unlikely to give up its long-standing spot at the head of the primary schedule. If it moves its date up, it could push the early caucuses back to December.

As noted above, it’s just silly.

Most Americans already think presidential campaigns last too long. The candidate debates being held now will barely be relevant by the time we cast our votes in November 2008. Jamming primaries ever tighter and ever earlier may winnow the campaign field prematurely, making the national nominating conventions even less relevant than they are now.

So many primaries are scheduled so close together now, that candidates spend little time in the individual states, especially those where they are less likely to garner support.

It seems clear that changes are needed in the presidential election process. Campaigns are starting too early, costing too much and not providing voters the information they need to make an intelligent choice. It may not be a bad time for Kansas and other states to sit back and see how the process shakes out before entering the primary fray.