Save the conventions!
Every year, pundits bemoan the irrelevance of the major parties' political conventions. Here's why conventions rule
Topics: Republican National Convention, Democratic National Convention, Republican Party, Democratic Party, Politics News
Workers continue the construction of the main stage in advance of the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., Thursday, August 23, 2012. (Credit: AP/J. David Ake)Political conventions reigned for a long time. From the 1830s through 1968 they, very basically, chose our presidents. The conventions were meetings of the representatives of state and local parties, and they would compete and coordinate over candidates and policies, ending up with a ticket and a set of deals they could all live with. Sometimes they were brilliant — for example, the Republican convention that chose Abe Lincoln or the Democratic convention that chose Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Sometimes, they were train wrecks — such as the 1924 Democratic convention, which took over two weeks and 103 ballots to find a nominee.
The Democratic Party’s reforms after its disastrous 1968 convention — a convention that took a divided party and hardened the divisions — changed all that. Modern conventions aren’t decision-making events, as everyone knows. The delegates, who now represent the candidates more than their state and local parties, are there mostly as props and extras for a television extravaganza. And since the broadcast networks have largely lost interest, you have the equivalent of a Cecil B. DeMille–style cast of thousands for a production that’s only going to play, at best, in a handful of theaters.
Yes, the parties do conduct some business at conventions, including ratifying a party platform and voting on any changes to party rules and, oh yeah, formally nominating the presidential candidate and a running mate. But the truth is that none of that has to happen in conjunction with an enormous gathering of delegates in a large arena with four days of podium speeches and efforts to find something interesting for TV to take the place of boring podium speeches.
So should the parties just give up the ghost and let these institutions die a dignified death?
No way.
First of all, while they’re not busy being extras, the delegates (and the alternates, and the rest of the crowd) use the party conventions in the same way that every organization uses their national meetings: to network, to spend time with old friends, to scare up a little business, to work rooms on behalf of themselves or their causes. That’s a useful function, and one that probably pays off for the parties in the long run by strengthening the ties within the party network. Indeed, while advances in communications policy have made in-person meetings unnecessary for making collective choices, the growth of true national political parties – something that hardly existed for most of the United States’ political history – has made in-person meetings, in some ways, even more important than they were in the 19th century. So while there’s no particular reason to tie it to the formal nomination of a party’s and other party business, if the conventions were cancelled, someone would have to re-invent the meet-and-greet portion of it.
Jonathan Bernstein writes at a Plain Blog About Politics. Follow him at @jbplainblog More Jonathan Bernstein.




No Evidence FBI Is Targeting Chechen Separatists In Boston Bombing Case, Advocates Say
Bill De Blasio Won't Be Distracted By Anthony Weiner
State Roadblocks Could Complicate Marriage Momentum
Comments
14 Comments