Presidential primaries have become to politics what reality shows have become to television — contests in which popularity more than anything else determines who wins.

Selecting entertainers by popularity doesn't matter much one way or the other — they don't get the nation into wars, their budget deficits only affect their own earnings, they can't pass laws curtailing freedoms.

But electing people to public office solely based on popularity — as opposed to selecting candidates based on their knowledge of the issues, their suggestions on how to move this nation forward and their ideas on how to cure the ills that still plague society — can prove dangerous to the health of this nation.

Yet, more and more, the election process becomes a popularity contest rather than one of substance.

Thank or blame this drift toward mediocrity on "we, the people," for diluting the carefully crafted system of governing developed by this nation's Founding Fathers — a democratic republic, citizens (the democracy part of this nation) electing representatives (the republic part) to craft this nation's laws and manage its affairs.

Democracy alone is a messy way to govern. Get too many people into the process and the more difficult it becomes to reach the consensus needed for effective government.

Yes, democracy remains the best way to elect the representatives who act on the people's behalf. But, as more people want a say in all areas of governing, the less likely the best will emerge.

One need only look at the presidential primary campaign under way — one that has been ongoing since Democrat Mike Gravel, former senator from Alaska, announced his candidacy April 13, 2006. Unofficially, the primary probably began the moment President Bush won his second term in the White House in November 2004.

A bit of presidential primary history (taken cautiously from Wikipedia.org and an Encyclopedia Americana article at ap.grolier.com) is in order:

Primaries have been around in one form or another since the middle of the 19th century, but they were either optional or covered limited areas. In 1912, Oregon became the first state to establish a presidential preference primary in which voters selected the candidate they preferred to represent the party. By 1920, 20 states had adopted such primaries, but interest dropped off. Between 1936 and 1968, only 13 or 14 states were holding primaries. Most nominees were selected in that proverbial "smoke-filled back room" by party stalwarts.

The contentious Democratic National Convention of 1968 changed all that. The Democratic Party decided it needed a change and recommended that states adopt new rules to assure a wider participation of party members in the selection process.

In short, they extended democracy into the selection of presidential nominees.

Today, nearly every state and every territory that can vote in a presidential election has either a primary vote or a caucus to help select a party's nominee.

But with more people participating in the selection process and more people trying to be selected, the pool of candidates becomes diluted — the best of the best do not run.

By its very nature, democracy promotes blandness. It cannot do otherwise. The least-offensive or the most-charismatic candidate rises to the top because, to be elected, he or she must appeal to broad coalition of the party's members. The candidates tell the people what they want to hear rather than what the people need to hear.

Thus, the presidential primary races have become ones of sound bites and waffling and overly cautious statements.

Yet, the primary system can work despite its flaws. Some flaws, such as the undue influence of monied interests — whether it's the corporate world hiring lobbyists or 527 organizations (named for the election-funding code that allows them) such as MoveOn.org hounding candidates — require reforms only Congress can enact.

But one flaw — this long, drawn-out primary season — can be fixed relatively simply.

This nation has only one nationwide election — for president and vice president. It makes sense, then, to have one national election day.

Why not have one national primary election day, say the first Tuesday in May or June? That would blunt the momentum factor one candidate picks up by winning an early primary or two. That would give candidates more of an incentive to talk about the real issues facing the whole nation rather than the selfish issues of one region. And, that would also give the rest of the people time to enjoy their favorite reality TV shows.

— Richard Larsen is a deputy opinion page editor at The Star. His e-mail address is rlarsen@VenturaCountyStar.com.