Scheduling the Party Conventions

In 2004, the Democratic party held its nominating convention in Boston, July 26-29. More than a month later, August 30-September 2, the Republican party renominated President Bush in New York City. Although the Republicans met somewhat later than usual, no doubt to remind voters of the events of September 11,2001, the tradition of scheduling the incumbent party's convention after that of the party out of power continued without serious discussion. Is this schedule based on reflection or merely reflexive? After examining its development, this research note then evaluates whether continuing the tradition still makes sense in a nomination system that bears little resemblance to the one in which it originated. Because these changes, particularly in the way campaigns are funded, have resulted in harm to the party holding the earlier convention, possible reforms will be suggested. Books on presidential elections barely mention the issue of convention scheduling. Those few that say anything generally suggest a reason with little elaboration. For example, James W. Davis's (1983, 45) explanation is that "another practice of the past several decades, although not formalized is to let the out-of-power party holds its convention first, since it needs more time for its campaign." Nelson Polsby and Aaron Wildavsky (2000, 129) write that "the 'out' party will normally hold its convention before the 'in' party, on the theory that its candidate will need a publicity boost earlier." The earliest party nominees for president were chosen by congressional caucus. In September 1831 the Antimason party, whose representation in Congress was too small for this method to be practical, held the first national nominating convention in Baltimore. (1) Although the Antimasons failed to last long enough to hold a second convention, the major parties quickly followed their example with the National Republicans nominating Henry Clay in December after which the Democrats chose incumbent Andrew Jackson the next May. In these early conventions the order in which the parties met varied from year to year, depending primarily on the needs of that particular election campaign. For the 1836 contest, President Jackson called the convention a year and a half before the election in order to prevent opposition to his choice of Vice President Martin Van Buren as his successor from coalescing around a single rival. The other major party, the Whigs, had so weak a national organization that they chose to forgo a national convention. Instead they ran different candidates in each region of the country in the vain hope of throwing the election into the House of Representatives by preventing any candidate from achieving an Electoral College majority. In 1840, the Whigs did meet first, nominating William Henry Harrison who defeated Van Buren in the general election but died soon after taking office. Despite being the incumbent party in 1844, the Whigs once again met first. However, their nominee, Henry Clay, lost to Democrat James Polk. This irregular pattern continued, with the incumbent Democrats meeting first in 1848; then, out of power, they did so again in 1852. Back in office, they held their 1856 convention before the new Republican party, choosing to reject President Franklin Pierce in favor of James Buchanan, who won the general election. A more complicated order occurred when the 1860 Democratic convention, held in Charleston, South Carolina from April 23 to May 3, adjourned without picking a candidate. The Republicans then nominated Abraham Lincoln after which the Democrats resumed in Baltimore, June 18, selecting Stephen A. Douglas. Delegates who had walked out held their own rump convention which chose Vice President John Breckinridge as its nominee. After the Republicans renominated Lincoln in June 1864, the Democrats delayed their convention until August 29, unsuccessfully hoping that the war would go badly. …