There appears to be broad support for shortening and simplifying the primaries process for choosing U.S. nominees for President. With the proliferation of primaries in the past decade, the process has become too long, too costly, and unnecessarily wearisome for candidates and public alike. Some complain the system tends to put more emphasis on skills required to get nominated than those for goveming. And incumbents involved – presidents, Congress members, governors – are handicapped in the campaign if they stick with official duties and risk neglect of. public trust if they pursue the camgaign, Oregon’s two Repu lican senators, Robert W. Packwood and Mark O. Hatfield, have initiated a move for change by introducing a “Presidential Regional Primaries Act” to simplify the cumbersome Erocess. In t e House, identical legislation has been offered by Washington Reps. Al Swift, Democrat, and Joel Pritchard, Rcipublican. ackwood, who has sought to improve the “way we choose our Presidential candidates” since 1968, says the bill sets up five U.S. regions. “Within these regions, states can choose whether they want to run a primary, but once they decide to do so. the primary would have to be on the same date as other states in the region.” The first primary would be on the second Tuesda in March. Others would foflow on the same day of succeeding months. A lottery 70 days before the first primary would determine which rezion would vote first. Lotteries also would determine the sequence of other primaries. Packwood says regional primaries would shorten the election process. And the inability of candidates to determine a year in advance which region would hold the first primary would act as a brake on those hoping to steal a march on competitors by early campaigning. The bill’s sgonsors quoted several igh officials on the need for change. Said Cyrus Vance, former Secretary of State: “Last year, more than a dozen candidates in 31 rimaries spent more than g100 million campaigning for the nomination. The experience has produced the growinglconviction that we must c ange the manner in which we choose presidential candidates. he problems are aw,. . The Packwood-Hatfield blll may not be the ultimate answer. Congressional debate can bring refinements. Perhaps other bills will be introduced for consideration. But the need for action is real – and the move should be made now, while the memories of the 1980 experience are still fresh and before the dynamics of the 1984 campaign begin to function.