Last August, the Democratic Party turned its back on Florida, which had the temerity to move its primary to a date the party didn’t like. Months later, it doled out the same punishment to Michigan for the same reason. Given how close the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has become, these sanctions are likely to hurt the punisher every bit as much as the punished. That’s bad for the party, but it could be good for the country in the long run.

The two states stepped on party pooh-bahs’ toes by scheduling primaries earlier than Feb. 5, thereby impinging upon the early-bird status enjoyed by Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. The party responded by disenfranchising the states’ Democratic voters. They could go to the polls if they wanted to, and many did, but their efforts would be purely ceremonial. No delegates were to be awarded in either primary.

The Republican Party has succumbed to the same unfortunate impulse, though it hasn’t been an issue thanks to John McCain’s sizable lead. In November, the Republican National Committee voted overwhelmingly to penalize five states for moving up their primaries. The penalty would cost New Hampshire, Florida, South Carolina, Michigan and Wyoming half their delegates.

Ignoring voters in this way is offensive for obvious reasons. It’s also incredibly stupid, as the Democratic Party is discovering. Hillary Clinton, who won both the Michigan and Florida primaries, wants the delegates seated. To do otherwise, her supporters say, would amount to disenfranchisement.

Meanwhile, some supporters of Barack Obama, who withdrew his name from the Michigan primary in a gesture of party loyalty, believe it would be unfair to count the delegates. After all, voting in Michigan and Florida might have gone differently if he’d campaigned in those states. Both Obama and Clinton have good arguments, which means that no solution is going to be very satisfying.

What good could come of this mess? The parties, having recognized the folly of threatening recalcitrant states with disenfranchisement, are almost certainly less likely to repeat the mistake. This is a good thing in its own right, of course. But besides that, the removal of the disenfranchisement threat could embolden more states to play primary hop-scotch. This trend is unhealthy, as it inevitably moves primary elections further and further from the November general election. But its continuation could increase pressure on the states, and even Congress, to do something that should have been done years ago: create a rational, nationwide primary system.

Such a system could have a number of forms, from a one-day national primary to a rotating schedule of regional primaries. The National Association of Secretaries of State favors the latter concept. So does Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who has co-sponsored a bill to bring it about. Unfortunately, a primary system imposed by Congress might not withstand a constitutional challenge, leaving the matter to the states. Fostering cooperation on such a scale wouldn’t be easy, but this year’s mess should be a powerful incentive.

But whatever a national system looked like, and whoever created it, it would (ideally) move primary voting closer to the general election. And, more importantly, it would reduce the frustration of late-primary states like Oregon, which often vote when doing so no longer matters. It’s just this sense of relative unimportance that motivates states to move their primaries in the first place.