Conventions are still not the Silver Bullet
Posted by bwana on March 15, 2007
With the “No Mas” announcement by John Chichester, the political maneuvering in Virginia 28 has commenced as to whether a convention or primary should be used to nominate his potential successor. This is a matter of no small controversy, as seen at NLS and BVBL.
I have long held conventions are at best a mixed bag of benefits. I find it interesting how the use of the convention in Virginia has changed, and how it is now being used to restrict the GOP rather than build it up. It also raises the question of whether a political organization can demand a party a line and still remain viable.
I was a young voter in the heyday of conventions. The battles of the 1977, 1978, 1981, and 1985 conventions could fill a poli-sci textbook with examples of political maneuvering. But at sum the GOP used conventions as a means to build the party, and felt potential for party growth outweighed the potential for bad blood from floor fights and delegate infighting.
As the GOP got stronger, and especially when the courts said delegate filing fees could not be charged, the GOP went strictly to primaries for statewide nominations. However, Virginia has not party registration, so the practice of crossover voting continued.
Now, in the 28th party chieftains have seized on the idea of using a convention to nominate apparently as a way to ensure ideological purity. They don’t want another Chich who proposes high taxes and the like. Fair enough.
But if the reports cited above are even half way correct then the party poo-bahs are choosing a convention not to build the party, but to make it more difficult for non-activist to participate in the nomination process. They want a convention to ensure a political purity, as opposed to primary that will help build toward a general election victory. They want a convention as a tool to restrict participation, and not as a tool to build the party.
Conventions are not a silver bullet that kills away all the awful crossover bogeymen. Candidates still have high expenses in contacting potential voters, and the bad blood that can be created often outweighs any practical benefit of keeping the process closed (see GOP in 1981 and 1985).
Moreover, can a party create ideological purity when it is not identified as having an ideology? One of the problems facing the Virginia GOP these days is that they don’t stand for anything beyond winning the next election. If you want candidates that hue to the party line, and if that line reflects a vision that the public will respond to, then isn’t the nomination better held in public with voters weighing in on the matter rather than in the closed, clammy confines of a convention hall?
The older I get, the less value I see in political conventions…and that is in the best of times. The situation in the 28th seems murky and muddy, and I get the feeling that the process is being managed by the Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight. The party leadership seems more interested in nominating the anti-Chichester rather than finding the strongest candidate…and their choices could result in some very real bad blood.
If Poobahs down there botch the nomination process, then this seat could become competitive real fast. But they will have stayed pure…and I hope they find solace in that.
O. P. Ditch said
Bravo, Bwana! I too believe that conventions limit the number of Republicans who participate in the selection of candidates. SURELY, the number of additional Republicans who vote in a Republican Primary, will undoubtedly overwhelm the minuscule number of “crossover dems.” This situation is also applicable to the adjoining county of PWC. Two (possibly three) unnecessary Conventions right before a county wide primary. What a waste of Republican resources on a faulty process.
JMUDuke said
Most every other state in the country has decided that primaries are the best way to select a candidate. How long will it be until we just relax and do the same? Why is the Virginia GOP so obsessed with rigging the process in order to pick the most conservative candidate?
Anke Cheney said
It’s not the convention process which is, in and of itself, bad, it’s the manner in which it has been conducted by the current crop of Republican leadership. As Bwanna stated, once upon a time it was a process which helped us toward building a Republican majority throughtout the Commonwealth rather than a process controlled by a small minority and designed to maintain party purity. Particularly statewide conventions can serve to rejuvinate party loyalists and recruit new people into the party…like the old sod, all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater…let’s just try to fix it (and I don’t mean the outcome).
Chris said
As long as we have an open primary and no party registration, conventions are the only way to ensure that its Republicans who select Republicans. Conventions, in my opinion, also force people to me more engaged in the political process. As well, the potential of a party being torn apart by a bitter primary are lessoned by a convention, where acrimony can still exist but not to the same degree. And its hard for me to necessarily buy the argument that it drives down participation, becasue throughout American history political participation was at its highest in the days of conventions. Its the great leveler, in my opinion. Millions of dollars that could ensure a primary victory aren’t always the key to a convention.
Thats my opinion, at least.
jatticus said
Primaries, if they are closed or the same day as Dem primaries, are useful at the Congressional District up to state-wide office to see the candidate pulling power to the polls. Which is different than the van-loading power of conventions.
The 28SD is not a manipulation. It’s an issue of process (See the RPV state plan) and votes that were made by the legislative district committee that can’t be undone – because there isn’t time under the process to do so. Make a flow chart for the events and it becomes clear.
The monkey wrench is that Chichester can’t change everything and have a primary to dump his reported $360k in the lap of his designated RINO replacement. If one pays attention to the rules, then you see how it can’t be manipulated. The votes of the commmittee were fair and square and followed the rule of law – what a concept.
Loudoun Insider said
Excellent analysis of the pitfalls of conventions. I am going to reference this post on my next at TC on the upcoming disaster of a convention planned for Loudoun County. It’s going to be a fiasco.
GOPHokie said
I think you have to make a distinction btw legislative district primary/convention and statewide ones.
The obvious reason for conventions in districts like this one is so that the majority locality can ensure their guy/gal gets the nomination, period. That is the single reason it is done. The Stafford people want their person to get the nomination, so if they have a convention they ensure that happens.
Obviously a statewide basis you can argue either way b/c no one locality can run the show (Fairfax is big, but not that big).
Cord A. Sterling said
I agree that conventions are not the way to go and will only lead us to defeat.
My name is Cord Sterling. I am the Vice Chair of the GOP Committee in Stafford and have been in the midst of the struggle that has taken place.
Let me start by correcting the implication made by GOPHokie. The Stafford Party (other than a few individuals including the current Chair) did not want a convention and fought against that decision. The Chair made a decision and voted for a convention while telling others on the Committee that he would not do so. I wont go into the reasons why he did this but we will be electing a new chair next month as a result. When we found out about it we fought hard to get the decision reversed but unit chairs in other counties (notably King George) used every technicality they could to prevent us from doing so. They did so because they knew that a convention method would restrict participation and they would then find it easier to get their chosen candidate nominated.
But, they made a mistake. Individual units decide the delegate selection process. Stafford elected a firehouse primary that would allow anyone who is a Republican and chose to participate–to vote. What that meant was that more people would have a say and that their vote would result in a candidate walking into a convention with 55% of the vote. If the 28th had elected this method from the start, then Stafford would not have been placed in such a position where its primary would decide the convention nominee.
Fortunately, people have learned and the process has been changed. The District will now have a firehouse primary where more people can participate and where each vote counts. Unfortunately, there are still people who avocate conventions as a way to nominate people who will only go down to defeat in the general election.
Despite where things stand with the nominating process, this seat is at risk. Pollard will be a tough candidate to beat and he will have the active support of Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, and Jim Webb. Time for Republicans to pull together.