A week of uproar over John Kerry’s idea of delaying his Dem nomination has made it abundantly clear that the traditional role of political conventions is in need of an overhaul.
Nearly every argument I heard against the plan floated by the Kerry campaign sounded redundant. Critics said it would relegate the convention to a four-day pep rally. But it’s already a four-day pep rally. Opponents of the idea argued a delay would leave the media less interested in the Dem convention. But the media is already disinterested and covering less and less of these events every cycle. Still others noted that if Kerry accepted the nomination five weeks after the convention, it would make the acceptance a mere formality. But since the outcome is well-known months in advance, as it is every year, it’s already a mere formality.
David Broder even said it would destroy an “institution of political significance.” But since both conventions are just carefully choreographed infomercials, they hardly qualify as “institutions,” better yet politically “significant” ones.
Kerry has since decided not to delay the process, but questions about the future of conventions linger. Noam Scheiber and Kenneth Baer offered two good ideas this week.
Scheiber says the system should first remove the advantage incumbents get by getting their money later.
According to today’s Washington Post, the rule on when presidential candidates receive their public financing is as follows: “They receive the money when they accept their nominations, or Sept. 1, whichever comes earlier.”
This does not strike me as the kind of rule Moses brought back with him from Mt. Sinai. Given that it’s exceedingly arbitrary — why September 1? — and that it’s supported by no political tradition to speak of, and that the circumstances in which the rule applies have changed dramatically (at the time it was written, which I’m guessing was during the immediate post-Watergate era, the idea of raising a couple hundred million dollars for a campaign probably seemed preposterous), why can’t we just re-write the rule so that both candidates receive their money at precisely the same time?
Seems like a no-brainer.
Baer, meanwhile, describes nominating conventions as “irrelevant,” and equates them with “coronations, and with just as much suspense.” He recommends replacing them all together with a better idea.
[I]t’s time to end the party convention as we know it, and instead give each party 10 hours of prime-time television in the three months leading up to a presidential election. This ought to satisfy everyone: It would free the party conventions from the perversities of the campaign-finance system, free the networks from covering a non-news event (while treating it as news), and better reflect the reality of our political process.
[…]
Giving the parties a bloc of free airtime would end the charade that conventions are meaningful, deliberative meetings that produce the nominees, while also ensuring no significant loss of national television coverage for the political parties. Americans could still engage in the political debate, and not just those who happen to live in swing states.
If a party believed that its summer gathering warranted coverage, it could use some of its allotted time to highlight speeches of its nominee, a keynote, and other leaders. Leftover hours could then be used to televise additional speeches, town halls, telethons, or extended party broadcasts, further extending the national dialogue.
I’m one of those quirky libs who dislikes McCain-Feingold for going too far in some places (unconstitutional restrictions on free speech) and not far enough in others (no mandates on free airtime). It’s why I’m inclined to endorse Baer’s plan wholeheartedly — it effectively removes the significance of already insignificant political conventions, while replacing them with a way for parties to communicate with the public in the way conventions used to.
Of course, when Baer says his plan “ought to satisfy everyone,” he means everyone except broadcasters, who go apoplectic at the very notion of free airtime for candidates. They stand to make quite a bit of money off of campaign ads and see little reason to just give up the airtime for free.
But Baer’s plan still has something for them as well.
[O]ne reason the networks are loath to cover the conventions and so upset at Kerry’s proposal is that it’s become an incredibly expensive (and pointless) proposition. With the prospect of being freed from doing so, they may be more apt to make the deal for free airtime.
Obviously, there won’t be any changes to the system this year, but with any luck, by 2008, when Kerry is running for re-election, a better process will be in place.