As the primary process continues to play out, officials on both sides of the aisle are already calling for major changes to the system in 2012. This week, Utah Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert has been pushing a plan that would overhaul the way nominating contests are conducted throughout the country. It revolves around regional primaries that would rotate every four years.

With Herbert helping to introduce the concept, the National Lieutenant Governor’s Association voted to back the idea Thursday – endorsing a plan proposed by the National Association of Secretaries of State.

Under this plan, the nation would be divided into four regions: East, South, Midwest and West. Beginning in March of each presidential election year, these sections of the country would take turns with each geographical region voting over the course of a four-month process.

Since the regions would rotate, each would get a chance to hold their primaries first, second, third and fourth over the course of 16 years. Iowa and New Hampshire, however, would still hold their number one and two spots.

That is a sticking point for some.

For example, Thomas Burr writes in The Salt Lake Tribune that Michigan Lt. Gov. John Cherry has noted opposition in the state’s federal delegation to Iowa and New Hampshire “always being first.” However, Burr adds that Cherry views the plan as a “good conversation starter.”

“If it’s on the table, people have the option to argue what their preference may be,” Cherry said.

Herbert has called the rotating primary plan “not only good for Utah but good for the country.”

“It is fair for the candidates, fair for the electorate … and fair for those that have to run the elections,” said Herbert, as quoted in the Deseret Morning News.

The plan would benefit states that often don’t exert much influence in the primary process. If the West region went first in any election year, for instance, states such as Utah, Idaho, Oregon and Montana would likely become much more significant, especially given the candidates’ quest for “momentum” as the process unfolds.

Lesser known candidates, who often don’t have huge budgets, would also benefit in that they wouldn’t have to criss-cross the country. Instead, they could focus their campaigns on select areas and then move on. Someone like former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who ran for president this year on a shoestring budget, might have been able to devote more resources on the ground rather than on his own travel schedule.

And the chaos that has resulted in Florida and Michigan—which moved up their primaries this year against the rules of the Democratic Party to find they were stripped of their delegates—would be avoided altogether. Officials there are now considering redoing their primaries so that the Democratic delegates can be seated at the party’s convention this summer.

There are some, even in Utah, who are not sympathetic to the plan. Burr writes that Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, has charged that “it is not the federal government’s place to dictate how parties and states schedule elections.” Likely, Bennett sees only the states playing that role with the involvement of the national parties.

As election officials in Florida and Michigan ponder the price tags of holding more primaries, Herbert and other officials around the country shake their heads, hoping for a more stable system four years from now.