Is our political primary system in need of repair?

In case you have not yet noticed, the Presidential primary election system is upon us.  Up to this point, only 2 states have voted (and one of them was a caucus, not a primary).  There has been much emphasis put on winning the caucus in Iowa and the primary in New Hampshire.  But why is that?  I have a hard time understanding why we put so much emphasis on winning these 2 states, when Iowa only has 6 electoral votes and New Hampshire has 4.  (Granted, the primary races are for delegates at the convention, not for electoral votes, but the electoral vote count gives us an idea of how big the state is compared to the entire country.)

This is not to say that their votes should count any differently than mine or yours.  I guess my problem is that their votes seem to count more, since there is so much emphasis put on those 2 states.  After all, the Republican winner of those 2 states this year has been declared the front-runner and people are basically handing him the nomination for the fall Presidential election.  Yes, winning definitely provides momentum, but is it too early to declare a winner, after only 2 states?

The next state having a primary election is South Carolina (9 electoral votes).  Then it will be on to Florida, with 29 electoral votes.  Certainly, after these 2 primaries, we will have a definitive front-runner.  Or will we?  Will it be too late for someone else to move to the front of the race?  Probably, but it would not be impossible.

As I have thought about this over the last several weeks, and months, I have come to the conclusion that the primary system in America needs to be fixed.  And to avoid being one of those whiners that only complains and offers no solutions, I have several ideas that I believe would help fix the system that we use to elect a party's candidate for political office.

So without further adieu, here we go.

1. Close the primaries for both parties.  The Republican primary should only be for registered Republicans and the Democrat primary should only be for registered Democrats.  I have no interest in voting for a Democrat nominee, and I surely do not want the Democrats picking the Republican nominee (heaven knows we have enough liberal Republicans voting in the primary).  To me, this is akin to people from New Jersey or New York coming to PA to vote for our governor or representative, or me going to their state to vote for their governor or representative.  I am not a citizen (i.e. member) of that state, so I should not be voting in their election.  Likewise, if you are an independent, you have no right to vote for a nominee of either party.
2. Political parties should not endorse any candidate.  I have never made a decision to vote for someone simply because the talking heads of the Republican party endorsed a candidate.  Once the party does endorse a candidate, they throw the weight of the party (and the money) behind that particular candidate.  Personally, I do not care who the talking heads want as the nominee.  And I do not believe that many other people out there care about the opinion of the talking heads.  However, once the talking heads make an endorsement, it makes it much more difficult for other candidates to have their voices heard and get their message out to the electorate.
3. Politicians should not endorse any candidate.  Celebrities often make political endorsements.  They just do not realize that most people could care less about their political leanings and beliefs.  Politicians often feel as though they are celebrities, so they think we care about who they are going to endorse for office.  This will often hurt them more than it will help them.  For instance, this hurt Rick Santorum in 2006, and was part of the reason he was not re-elected.  In 2004, Santorum endorsed the re-election of that Senatorial turncoat, Arlen Specter.  Many conservatives were extremely unhappy about this, and they did not vote for Santorum in the 2006 election (they most likely did not vote for Sen. Casey either, most likely choosing a 3rd party candidate, or not voting for that office at all).  So my message to politicians is this - keep your nose out of the primaries and stop endorsing candidates.
4. There should be a limited number of caucus/primary dates on the calendar.  The primary/caucus season started on 1/3/12 for this election cycle, and will not be over for several months.  That is just too long for an election cycle.  I believe that we should have 7 dates for primaries/caucuses.  There would be 7 primaries on each date, except for the first one, which would have 8 states voting that day.  These primaries should start on the first Tuesday in April, and proceed for the next 6 weeks after that.  That way, they will not be strung out for months.  Also, it would shorten the political season, as most of us are too tired of the whole thing by the time the conventions roll around.
5. Large states should be the last to hold primaries/caucuses.  In conjunction with the truncated primary season, I contend that the primaries and caucuses should be held in reverse order of electoral votes.  This way, the big states would come last.  This would cause the candidates to have to go to the smaller states in order to win elections and get an advantage over their competitors.  This should also keep more candidates in the race longer, as these smaller states would probably be won by several of the candidates.  This should also lead to an exciting finish of the primary season, instead of having the primary season over by mid-March, with half the nation still having not voted in a primary and basically being disenfranchised in the primary process.  No particular candidate would be able to win enough delegates until the final couple of weeks of the primary season, therefore allowing candidates to stay in the race longer and making it more competitive.  Also, it would keep states from arguing with each other and trying to move their primary dates so they can be earlier in the whole process.  (In case you were wondering, being from Pennsylvania, we would vote on the last primary day under this proposed plan of mine.)
6. If you are going to run for higher political office, you need to resign from your current elected office.  This is a pet peeve of mine.  The people voted a politician into office to do a particular job.  The people did not vote someone into office in order for that person to run for a higher office and forsake the job they were elected to do.  If that person is running for higher office, he is not doing what he was elected to do, thus giving those who elected him a raw deal.  We  should have expectations of our elected officials to do the job they were elected to do.  If they do not do it, they should not hold that office.  Also, this would allow us to see who is really serious about running for office.  If they are willing to give up their current elected office instead of using it something to "fall back on" should they lose, then we know that the person will be a serious candidate for office.
7. The political season needs to be shorter.  Once Wednesday, November 7 rolls around, the 2016 Presidential race will start.  Thankfully, many of us will to tired of politics to care.  But that does not mean that the networks will not try to shove it down our throats.  The Presidential election process should not start until January of the election year.  This year, by the time January 1 had rolled around, the Republicans had already had numerous debates.  This is happening too early, and it continues to get earlier each election cycle.  Right now, unless your state is having a primary, not many people are paying attention to the process and the candidates.  It is time to shorten the election season.

I am sure that if I sat here long enough, I could come up with more areas that need to be fixed in the primary process.  However, I believe that I have encapsulated most of the major problems in the 7 items outlined above.  We need to take steps to fix the process, not tinker with it and actually make it worse.