Making the conventions matter

Posted August 26, 2008

In the days leading up to the Democratic Party's 2004 convention, Times editors lamented that the quadrennial spectacles "need to be reinvented. Or killed. It's hard to imagine what could rescue them from meaninglessness." But 2004 was Sen. John Kerry's show; this year, the Democrats are nominating Barack Obama, a would-be president known for his soaring oratory.

Still, the major conventions no longer serve their original purpose: to decide the party's nominee. Nothing but how large a post-convention poll bounce a party's nomine will receive rides on these festivities. As if to prove the events' pointlessness, Democratic Party insiders tried painstakingly to avoid a 2008 convention that would have any meaningful consequence on the election by pushing Hillary Clinton to quit her primary campaign months before this week's fete in Denver.

Send your thoughts on how you would change the party conventions to opinionla@latimes.com. We'll post what we can at latimes.com/opinion or on our Opinion L.A. blog, opinion.latimes.com. Below are what The Times' editorial board said in 2004 and the reader responses the paper published.

Sunday, July 4, 2004
Editorial: Can This Relic Be Saved?

Like the Olympics, the Democratic and Republican conventions are elaborate media events staged every four years, with lots of flag-waving and anointing of popular champions. The difference is that many people actually watch the Olympics.

Whether it's the Democrats in Boston later this month or the Republicans in New York next month, the conventions have become events so carefully staged for television that even the delegates will look bored until they're ordered to cheer. In 2000, the major networks allotted four to five hours of prime-time coverage; because low ratings are expected this year, there could be only three hours nightly.

It was not always so. Well before television, conventions were an essential part of the democratizing of America in the early 19th century. They replaced the system called "King Caucus," in which members of Congress chose presidential and vice presidential nominees. Skulduggery, backroom dealings and rowdy crowds ensured excitement at the early conventions. Whig Party leader Henry Clay memorably complained in 1839, after being denied the nomination in Harrisburg, Pa., "It is a diabolical intrigue, I know now, which has betrayed me."

Decades later, little had changed. Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 Republican nomination, notes historian Eugene H. Roseboom, as a result of "midnight conferences of liquor-stimulated politicians, deals for jobs, local leaders pulling wires to save their state tickets, petty malice, and personal jealousies -- a strange compound, and the man of destiny emerges." The atmosphere was always circus-like: Woodrow Wilson wasn't nominated until the 46th ballot in 1912.

Today's primary system, in which states compete to hold their primaries earlier and earlier, ensures that presidential candidates are selected long before the conventions. Because of federal campaign finance rules, the conventions can't be held much earlier.

Democratic and Republican party operatives are reduced to imploring MTV and Comedy Central to train their cameras on the dullness. Web bloggers will get special spots at Boston's FleetCenter. GOP organizers are counting on star power: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani will head the bill. It won't be enough. Unless the candidates do something crazy, like John Kerry allowing convention-goers to select his running mate, public interest will keep dwindling.

The conventions need to be reinvented. Or killed. It's hard to imagine what could rescue them from meaninglessness.

Got a better idea? Send it in 200 words or less to conventionletter@latimes.com. No attachments, please, and no conventional wisdom. We will publish the best responses.

What readers said:

Sunday July 11, 2004
Rethinking the Political Conventions

I disagree with your editorial, which argued that modern political conventions should be dropped or radically redesigned (July 4).

True, they no longer involve any substantive debate and are little more than slick TV productions.

Nevertheless, watching the conventions shows viewers the essence of the two parties and clearly delineates the differences between them. Look at the cutaway shots of the delegates on the convention floor. Democrats, on the whole, look different from Republicans. Which group looks more like people with whom you identify?

The parade of speakers may be putting forth bombastic rhetoric, but Democrat bombastic rhetoric is different from Republican bombastic rhetoric. Voters unsure of how to vote can easily choose based on what they see at the conventions.

Peter Coonradt
Redlands

The national party convention needs to be preserved in case there is a presidential candidate death either after the nominating convention and before the November election, or after the November election and before the inauguration.

The Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee both keep the rules on how to handle a presidential candidate's death away from the public, even from the rank-and-file party delegates.

It is time to get the DNC and RNC to tell the public how they would handle such an event. These party elite at the top would want to control the pick themselves.

Reconvening the convention is the best way to ensure that the people's delegates will be able to pick the presidential candidate for all the public to see, with the rules spelled out. A presidential candidate's death is trauma enough, but worse would be the DNC or the RNC picking a new candidate behind closed doors and announcing it as a done deal.

Mary Ann Gilmour
Whittier

The modern process of political conventions is in the TV doldrums. To improve the process, first make them shorter, only two days at most. The hosting cities might complain, but that is better than millions of viewers tuning out. Second, in this day of MTV-style immediate gratification, they must be more exciting. Faster pace and a greater variety of speeches and short film documentaries showing a party's/candidate's goals and achievements might even decrease voter apathy. After months of nauseating campaign commercials, who wants to listen to more of the same?

Jeffrey Rath
Beijing

Question: Why is it necessary to hold political conventions when both major tickets have already been decided? It appears to be a monumental waste of time and money that could be spent in a better fashion elsewhere, like schools, medical research, etc.

Rick Immel
Chatsworth

Have all state primary elections on the same day, maybe 30 or 60 days before the November election. Currently, many states have only one candidate left when it's their turn to vote their conscience.

Kevin Petersen
Santa Ana

Get rid of the following: balloons, funny hats, all signs, banners, speeches from elected officials as well as "just plain folks," and the roll call of the states for voting. We are in an electronic era; votes should be done from voting terminals. Here are the other changes:

Day 1: Discussion of the party platform. The platform should be summarized into four to six key concepts.

Day 2: Elected officials and candidates take questions from the press on the platform as presented the night before.

Day 3: No nominating or seconding speeches, but instead a video introduction of the nominee for vice president followed by a 15-minute speech, then a press panel for one hour allowing questions on any subject.

Day 4: One nominating and one seconding speech, but not by elected officials. Use delegates to the convention.

Robert W. Karp
Oceanside

We the people should directly elect the president. No conventions. No primaries. No caucuses. No electoral college.

A single election with preferential voting can do it all. Pick your first, second and third choice. Election scientists have several good methods for sorting through the votes to determine the winner.

Primaries and conventions were invented to deal with the problem of a group of like-minded people splitting their vote. For example, many feared that Republicans running against each other in the recall election could have split the vote and prevented any of them from winning.

Preferential voting does a much better job of picking the candidate who is liked by the most voters. For example, one might pick Ralph Nader and John Kerry as top choices without having any fear of having this vote help President Bush.

Preferential voting also saves taxpayers money by eliminating costly primaries and conventions.

Richard M. Mathews
Northridge

In late September or early October, a group of Republicans gather to nominate a Democrat for president. On that same afternoon, Democrats gather to nominate the Republican presidential candidate. Each party will nominate a candidate most likely to lose the election. Yet, one of the two candidates will be elected president. Hence, it is in the self-interest of both parties to agree to such a scheme.

Thomas Thorsen
Rancho Palos Verdes

Kill the conventions. If the networks intend to cover only three hours, ask them to broadcast an entertaining program. Or, the money spent for the convention plus the network expense could be used to give medication to the poor.

Emma Gottlieb-Ellinoy
Seal Beach