It’s now hard to believe John F. Kennedy waited until Jan. 2, 1960, to announce he was running for U.S. president.

Of course, the New Hampshire primary, then the first test of candidates, wasn’t until March, leaving him what was then considered plenty of time to campaign.

How things have changed.

Today’s pack of presidential aspirants – with the exception of Fred Thompson – have already spent a year or more planning, opening campaign offices, recruiting volunteers, raising money and making repeated trips to Iowa and New Hampshire.

The undemocratic nature of this ever lengthening process is well documented: Only a tiny sliver of the United States population gets to participate, and the two states that benefit from the attention are exceptionally unrepresentative of the nation at large.

Efforts are regularly made to change the way this works. A variety of states have moved their presidential primaries forward in an attempt to play some role in the selection of candidates.

In 2005, the Democratic National Committee recommended adding several caucuses ahead of New Hampshire’s primary. The recommendation was approved by the full Democratic National Committee, but it went nowhere.

In a snit of selfishness, the New Hampshire Legislature actually passed a law in 1977 requiring its primary election take place seven days before any other “similar contest.”

New Hampshire’s childlike insistence on being first in line is partially responsible for this mind-numbing “election creep.” As other states select earlier primary dates, New Hampshire moves its primary even further forward.

Iowa and New Hampshire have clung tenaciously to their favored positions, arguing their intense, even personal, examination of candidates is an important part of the process.

Yet, polls have shown that by the time Iowa caucus-goers gather in January, voters in the rest of the U.S. are sick and tired of reading and hearing about candidates having living room coffee klatches in Iowa.

Most galling was a statement last week by New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, who argued New Hampshire’s political role cannot be duplicated anywhere else in the U.S.

Only New Hampshire, he said, requires “candidates move beyond the rope line and scripted town hall meetings and directly answer hard questions from voters.”

Bunk.

There is absolutely no reason that the small-state selection process couldn’t be duplicated in any number of states. Why not North Dakota instead of Iowa? Why not Maine or Rhode Island instead of New Hampshire?

Maine consistently has one of the highest election turnout rates in the U.S., plus a history of active grassroots participation in the political process.

All of which has led some experts to suggest a revolving presidential primary process. It’s not as if the current process is written in stone or even has an extended history.

Iowa made itself first in the nation in 1972. New Hampshire has moved its date five times since 1952 in order to maintain its first-in-the-nation status.

When this presidential season is behind us, we hope both political parties will again dedicate themselves to reforming this foolish process.