OK. It’s finally come to this: New Hampshire voters tromping to the polls before Christmas Day to help select the next president.

If that’s what happens, Granite State residents will have no one but themselves to blame.

This gets a little complicated, but bear with us, please.

Florida again kicked off the one-upmanship by moving its presidential primary election date to Jan. 31.

South Carolina then moved to Jan. 21 to beat Florida, which prompted Nevada to select Jan. 14.

Iowa then selected Jan. 3.

All of which would seem to leave New Hampshire with a wide-open week in which to conduct its first-in-the nation primary between Jan. 3 and 10.

One small problem: A state law says no other state can conduct a “similar contest” within seven days of New Hampshire’s primary.

That’s right. New Hampshire not only wants the first actual primary election, it wants a margin of uninterrupted media attention around its date.

This might work if other states had enough lead time to work around New Hampshire’s date.

But, in his determination to be first, New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner traditionally delays selecting a date until everyone else has committed.

In the past, this has allowed him to be sure to pick a date earlier than everyone else and leave a seven-day window around his state’s date.

Over time, however, other states have decided to go earlier and earlier, all hoping to gain the media attention and ad spending that is unfairly bestowed on Iowa and New Hampshire.

Perhaps the time has finally come for Congress to declare a national primary election day.

If we can have a national date to elect a president, why can’t we have a single national date to weed through the contenders?

This would give every state a fair shot at selecting the field for the presidential race.

It would also eliminate the distortions created by the current system; for example, candidates kowtowing to the ethanol lobby just because Iowa votes early.

Candidates could address national issues from the start, rather than trying to craft a message to so many small slices of the national electorate.

Other systems have been proposed, including one by the National Association of Secretaries of State. This would divide the country into four regions where primary elections would be held one month apart.

The voting order of those regions would rotate from election to election to give everyone a chance to go first.

National primary? Regional primary?

Anything would be preferable to the current system, which is chaotic, unpredictable and unfair to millions of Americans.

[email protected]

The opinions expressed in this column reflect the views of the ownership and editorial board.