The Daily Alaska empire., 1936-07-14
Nominating Conventions
(New York Times)

Few people who listened the radio to recent convention proceedings" who read the next morn ings newspaper account, can have escaped sense of ncongruity Delegates assembled at Cleve- land and Philadelphia, to declare the principles and select the candidate of the political party which might conduct in the next four years, the affairs of a great Government. Important committees were nec- essariy at work but, far the delegates were con- cerned, the occasion of unrestrained and often boisterous merriment. The convention had evil dently come to be amused. During a good part of the session, when individual delegates had nothing else to do the amusement approached extravaganza. At times the Chairman of Credentials Platform Committee, already introduced to submit it's report had to wait helplessly until procession down the aisles, costumed not unlike Twelfth Night mummers had completed It's march, accompanied by an uproar which drowned all possibility of serious deliberaton Responsible convention officers have been known to inquire anXiousy, if their own partys convention had not put up a better show" than the other
 It cannot be fairly said that, in this respect, nominating conventions of 1886 have differed from others very widely. As far back as Lincoln's nomna- tion in 1860 the uproar and antics of the delegates were remembered by all contemporary observers But will probably be agreed that the tendency of later days has been increasingly toward staged celebra- ton, and away from the swaying of the conventions attitude by the powerful argument or impassioned eloquence of well-tnown public men. To consider able extent the unavoidable talking for the radio"
 
 audience as it had already destroyed the old time quality of speeches at public dinners. Convention oratory" had a very real influence when Cleveland first nominated in 1884 and in the hoty contested Republican convention struggle of 1880; not to men, ton the famous case of the Bryan convention" of 1896. But the individual delegate has become more and more pawn, in the larger convention strategy.
 Sometimes it is wondered whether, like the "eec- toral college" expedient the nominating convention in it's present form has not outliyed it's usefuness whether less anomalous political machinery may substitute? The only alternative which has actually been tested would to be platform drafting and naming of candidates by body of experienced public men. British Prime Ministers and French Presidents selected by caucus of the party in an existing Parliament and method closely similar pursued in early Presidential nominations. down to and including that of John Quincy Adams in 1924 But the voting public, even then, became increas- ngly restive plan of selecting candidates from which it was excluded. It is often said that the Presidential convention know it was introduced when Andrew Jackson first nominated in 1928 But Jackson put in the field by vote o the Ten neSsee State Legislature. It not until the next Presidential year that the idea of national conven- ton with accredited delegates adopted, and the party which nominated Henry Clay employed it before the same machinery was used by Jacksons party The electorate forced the innovation both parties
 The most that can be said of the present system IS that 1t creates the machinery for preparing uni form platform and for submitting it to vote of &C., credited delegates and that provides at lease the opportunity for the delegates body to make their own selection of the candidate There have been conventions in which after the choice had appar- ently been foreordained by instructions State con- ventons, the national delegates have taken the mat ter into their own hands. eY *