Oregon voters take to the mailboxes on May 20th for its presidential primary election. Although Oregonians tend to be very politically active, more can be done to extend Oregon's influence on national politics.

I've discussed - complained, if you will - my frustrations with the idea that Oregon seems to be irrelevant to national elections. We are not part of Super Tuesday, we are not first primaries, we don't even have a lot of delegates. Add in the fact that MSM tends to call elections before our results are even counted (due to the time difference), and our elections are pretty moot.

To the dismay of many Oregon voters, however, this politically active swing state has been relegated to the sidelines during the national Super Tuesday events.

“It’s just nuts, the way the whole primary system is front-loaded,” [Bradbury] said, using the election term that refers to the biggest states holding their caucuses first.

By the time Oregon’s primary rolls around, “it’s not likely that our votes are going to really matter,” he said. “It’s not likely we’re going to get much attention from anybody.”

That's why I like Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury's idea of a rotating primary season.

The new system would group primaries or caucuses by region on a rotating basis beginning in 2012.

A lottery would be held to determine which region would go first in March, and that region would move to the end of the primary calendar for the following presidential election cycle. Subsequent regions would hold their primaries in April, May and June.

The only exceptions to the system would be Iowa and New Hampshire, which would retain their early time slots based on their traditions as small, easy stomping grounds for underfunded, lesser-known candidates.

Bradbury mentions the typical political benefits of a rotating primary season.

Bradbury said Oregon voters would benefit because candidates would be forced to bone up on issues of local importance and campaign in each region; in the Pacific Northwest, they would be vetting issues like forestry, salmon and renewable energy in the Pacific Northwest.

There's also the economic benefit. Early states get millions of dollars in campaign revenue. Local news organizations and print media can take in additional ad revenue due to increased viewership and circulation. Candidates spend days, with their coterie, spending money in the local economy.

Let's also not forget the current legal battles with Michigan and Florida, with regards to their Democratic Party delegates. Due to the state parties' feelings of disenfranchisement, both states moved their primaries up to be more influential and ended up getting their delegates stripped from the Democratic National Convention. A rotating regional primary schedule would provide these states with the ability to move ahead in the primary season without incurring penalties.

Overall, I view this as a win-win for candidates, states, and the citizenry.

[Cross-posted at PROJECT: Lucidity]