But in my view, it’s not just about Mr. Sanders: March 3 is too soon to select any candidate.

Longer elections are in order — necessary, in fact — because of the fatefulness of the choice voters make. The president makes decisions that affect our lives, our physical safety and that of the planet, and the durability of our democracy. It follows that we should know all that we can about that person’s intelligence, temperament, knowledge, curiosity, stability, judgment, curiosity and diplomatic skill.

Four years is a long time to have one person so much in our lives. (And since incumbent presidents tend to have a re-election advantage, there’s all the more reason to learn all we can — kick the tires and see how well they wear — before letting ourselves in for a possible eight years of them.) While millions of people manage to shut politics essentially out of their lives, a president can be harder to avoid than ever, especially if we elect someone whose idea of successful governance is to get in our face as much as possible.

Another reason for an extended campaign is the need to try to understand who a candidate is. More exposure might clarify this for us. It would also enable deeper vetting of a candidate before that person is left to the tender mercies of Mr. Trump and his many allies and operatives.

A long campaign can also produce a better candidate. (It has to be conceded that it can also produce a pretty damaged one, but given the powers of the presidency, the trade-off seems well worth it.) The longer campaign gives the presidential contestant more time to hone issues and arguments, to figure out what he or she wants to emphasize, and gain exposure to more of the country.

The presidency is an extremely demanding, almost brutal job (if the president takes governing seriously). We’ve seen many a president’s hair turn white over the course of a single term. Don’t we want a real test of their endurance? How hard will a noticeably coddled candidate work upon reaching the White House? How will their health hold up?

The powers that be in the Democratic National Committee thought that they were being smart in rearranging the primaries and caucuses so that the party wouldn’t be in for a long bloodletting. But it might well have given an advantage to the candidate who had the strongest base going into the primaries, but who, as of now, might represent only a third of the party, and possibly less.

It’s tempting to mess with the political calendar to reach a desired result. But in speeding up the nomination process this year, Democratic officials may have not only gotten their party in a pickle, they may have also short-circuited democracy.

Elizabeth Drew, a political journalist who for many years covered Washington for The New Yorker, is the author of “Washington Journal: Reporting Watergate and Richard Nixon’s Downfall.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.