Here's an instructive exercise: Try to explain the American presidential primaries to someone unclear on the concept — a teenager, perhaps, or someone from another country.

It's a fairly safe bet that most American adults don't really understand it themselves. Nor have they felt especially engaged by the process in the past, unless they happen to live in Iowa or New Hampshire where, every four years, it becomes part of the scenery, along with pasture fences and autumn leaves.

That's why so many states have moved their caucuses or primaries — however their parties select their preferred candidates — up in the calendar, so that Feb. 5 now looms as a "Super Tuesday" when most of the convention delegates are committed. These are states that want to participate before the final selection becomes the foregone conclusion it usually becomes right before the party conventions.

And that's why the federal government must seriously contemplate a major change in the way elections are handled. A set of four regional primaries leading up to the party conventions appears to be the system offering the best hope of enhanced voter participation.

Currently, that participation is low — a few percentage points at best.

Hawai'i, as much as any state, feels all but extraneous to the primaries. Our few delegates have little influence in party selections. Republicans begin their selections in caucuses by districts, starting Jan. 25. By the time Democrats meet Feb. 19 to choose their state delegates, decisions made elsewhere leave them feeling pretty irrelevant.

The question has been asked, here and around the country: Does this system make any sense for America anymore?

In the days before mass communications, there was some logic to conducting state meetings and pledging delegates for the candidate who best met the local needs. These delegates would head for the national convention, where there would be an actual tussle over the final choice.

Now the conventions merely confirm the selection that's already been made. There still may be a function for them to fill, in the event of a very close race. In fact, we may be encountering such a case with this election.

The discussion over the utility of state-by-state primaries has droned on for several years. Among the many criticisms for the current system is its inconsistency: Some states have primaries with secret ballot; some have caucuses where voting happens publicly. There is little provision made for absentee voting.

In 2005, the Commission on Federal Election Reform issued a report with various proposals for making elections more accessible. Although ideas on curbing voter fraud drew the most attention during the congressional discussions that followed, there was also a hefty section endorsing the idea of regional primaries.

The commission favored allowing the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary to continue leading off the season to enable the testing of the candidates through small-town, door-to-door campaigning. Some commissioners pointed out the flaw in that argument, noting that Iowa and New Hampshire are not in the mainstream and should not have this enhanced access to the candidates.

The finer points — and there are many — need to be worked out. But that will never happen unless the conversation begins. Before the next presidential election, America needs a means of selecting its presidential nominees that is fairer, more consistent and more suited to the 21st century.