Mike Berman’s monthly newsletter is one of my favorites of the many things that drop into my emailbox–and, lucky for us, Mike has now made it available on the web. The August edition has some interesting stats on the increasing irrelevance of political conventions:
Neither Party has had a multi-ballot convention since 1952. The last Republican convention to go beyond the 1st ballot was in 1948, when it took 3 ballots for Tom Dewey to secure the nomination. The last Democratic convention that required more than one ballot was in 1952, when Adlai Stevenson needed 3 ballots to secure his place in history.
What’s more, since 1956 there have only been 3 conventions in which the ultimate nominee got less than 62% of the vote on the first ballot. The exceptions were
the Democratic convention in 1960 when John Kennedy received 53% of the vote on the 1st ballot
the Democratic convention in 1984 when Walter Mondale received 56% of the vote
the Republican convention in 1976 when Gerry Ford got 53% of the voteThe delegates and alternates have been reduced to the status of extras in a carefully staged theatrical production.
In 1960, the three TV networks that carried the conventions received an average rating of 28.5. (i.e., 28.5% of potential viewers watched all or part of them). By 2004, with 7 TV and cable networks providing coverage, the average rating was 16.
But Mike goes on to make an interesting argument as to why conventions are actually a bad thing for the parties.
In 2004 WW estimated that the Democratic convention in Boston cost something between $150-200 million dollars before the first delegate booked a flight, rented a room or purchased a meal. This does not take into account the tens of millions that various networks spend covering these events.
Given that the current delegate apportionment rules of the two Parties make it unlikely that there will be a need for a multi-ballot convention anytime soon, why do the Parties continue to produce these extravaganzas?
One reason is inertia. Neither Party wants to be the first to change the format, although it is hard to understand the argument for continuing.
Another argument is that the conventions provide an opportunity for the Party’s leadership to come together every four years.
Perhaps the best argument for these conventions is that they provide the largest audience which a Party’s nominee will enjoy until his or her inaugural, and a venue in which they have absolute control over the message. It is also the largest “solo” audience that the Party’s Vice Presidential nominee will enjoy, unless he or she runs for President.
These two worthwhile goals could easily be achieved without resorting to the machinations of the current conventions.
Most of the Party-building activity at these conventions actually occurs outside of the hall.
And what is the likelihood that TV and cable would not cover the acceptance speeches of the Party’s nominees if the events were held in the kind of setting that most large national conventions enjoy?
And if the day comes when there is again a multi-ballot convention, conducting that contest certainly does not require the constructive modification of a basketball/hockey arena.
But perhaps the biggest driver of a change in the nature of these conventions will be the fact that few if any cities will bid to host these gatherings in the future, unless there is substantial modification of the requirements.
Finally, Mike offers this compendium of convention trivia. (Or has “convention trivia” become a redundancy?)
So what do you think? Should the Democrats and Republicans just call the whole things off?