Op-Ed; Convention system misses on all fronts

THOMAS M. KEANE, JR.
833 words
7 June 2002
Boston Herald
All Editions
031
English
(Copyright 2002)

When Jean-Paul Sartre wrote about "being and nothingness," he might well have been thinking about the Democratic State Convention.

Consider the effort that went into last week's debacle. The convention had been the singular focus of every statewide campaign for at least six months. In early February, Democrats from around the state spent a day choosing delegates for their respective wards and towns. Each delegate plumped for a fee of $55 just for the privilege of serving and then was inundated with supplicants pleading their causes. Mailings, videotapes, T-shirts and the always- useful refrigerator magnets poured across their doorsteps. Many campaigns spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on television ads simply designed to persuade this small group of 5,000.

Then, of course, there was the convention itself, a beautiful weekend sacrificed by delegates who really wanted to believe they were making a difference. The notion, in its ideal, was to winnow the field, to anoint candidates behind whom all Democrats would stand and to energize the party for its November battles against the Republicans.

None of that happened. Democrats left the Worcester Centrum dispirited and disheartened. No one was anointed. The day started with five candidates for governor; it ended that way. The only one cut from the September primary ballot was one Sarah Cannon Holden, candidate for lieutenant governor. Sarah who, you ask? Exactly. And perhaps most embarrassing, delegates didn't even stick around for the vote for treasurer, meaning all four of the hopefuls ended up being approved by acclamation.

The recriminations will go on for a while, a lot of them aimed at Philip Johnston, chairman of the Democratic State Committee. Yet, this year, while perhaps uniquely chaotic, was not markedly different from previous conventions. Some fixes, like electronic voting, might make convention day itself run a little smoother. But they won't cure the underlying problem. The truth is, the convention is worthless. Actually, it's worse than that: All it seems to engender is bad press that calls into question the ability of the party (and by extension, its candidates) to run anything.

The reason is: The Democrats have got it exactly wrong. Rather than holding their convention before the primary election, they should reverse the order, running the primary first.

Like many other states, the party should move its primary election to the spring, letting all voters choose among candidates who gather enough signatures to get on the ballot. Afterward, it could hold a convention where party members would gather to cast their votes - based on the results of the primary - for their chosen candidates. I, for one, would thrill to hear, "Mr. Chairman, the grand and glorious town of Egremont, `the town of the ancient trees,' proudly casts its six votes for . . ." You get the idea.

True, this change would make the convention a largely ceremonial affair, much like the national conventions held every four years to choose presidential nominees. Yet the convention would have its uses. It would build unity, force groups fractured by the primary to create coalitions and, unlike last weekend's convention, generate reams of great press. And in some cases, it could play a role in picking the nominee. For example, in a congressional primary in Iowa this week, no candidate received over 35 percent of the vote. It will now be up to the party's convention to choose a nominee.

There is an alternative to this, however, albeit one that would be sure to be controversial. The Democrats could eliminate the primary process altogether and go back to the old-style way of choosing nominees at the convention. This approach probably won't win many friends because it smacks so much of insiderism. Yet, it too is worth thinking about.

One common complaint about primary elections is that they undermine political parties. Over time, the parties' platforms become increasingly bland and inconsequential. (Who, after all, doesn't support the Democrat's goals of better education, decent health care and a clean environment?) A lot of that can be traced to the fact that primaries have supplanted party events such as elections. What is the point of a political party, many wonder, when it is the mass of voters who determine the nominee?

Handing back control of the nomination process to party activists would mean that a smaller group of party members would be in complete control. Is that really a problem? In exchange, we might end up with candidates with sharper views, a more concrete agenda and clear-cut differences - which would make things a lot better for voters in the general elections in November.

One thing is for sure. Today's convention system works for no one. It's easy to blame Johnston or the 15-percent rule or something else. But real reform will require changes that are more fundamental.

Tom Keane can be reached at tom@tomkeane.com.

Document bhld000020020607dy670007i