Primaries are Better than Conventions!!!!
on June 28th, 2012 at 12:30 AMAs you know, recently, the RPV State Central Committee voted to change the 2013 nomination method from a primary to a convention. Since 2012 is vastly more important than 2013, this will probably be my only post on the subject. (Unless the 2013 convention raises almost no money and has low turnout – in that case, I’ll do a “I told you so” post.) In any event, I’ve compiled my thoughts on the matter and heres what I’ve come up with.
Those who argue for a convention over a primary usually use one narrow-minded talking point: Only Republicans can vote in a convention, in a primary, Democrats can show up in droves.
Yet, if that is true, how come Hillary Clinton isn’t President? After all, Rush Limbaugh told every single Republican out there to vote for Clinton over Obama. Obama still won many of the states that had “Operation Chaos” movements. Or how about locally? If the argument that opposing political party members can show up in both primaries holds water, how come Jim Moran or Frank Wolf are still in Congress? In 2008, Frank Wolf had a primary challenger, and still won with 91.73% of the vote. If Democrats really wanted to oust Frank Wolf, wouldn’t they have voted in a primary against him? Yet they didn’t.
In 2012, Jim Moran receieved a primary challenger. How come Republicans didn’t show up in droves to oust him? Is it because they know it would have NO effect? One blogger, JimSwift.net did a post about that and hit the nail on the head. Assuming that EVERY Republican in the 8th district showed up in the primary and voted for Moran’s challenger, you would still see Moran winning. Check the full results here.
There you go. Proof that open primaries still means a reputable way to choose a nominee.
Besides all this, lets not forget that the following people are disenfranchised when we opt for a convention over a primary:
- Members in the Military serving overseas
- The National Guard
- Government employees who are in the “Hatch Act”
- The Elderly
- Parents with kids who can’t find a sitter
- Students
- People who work on the weekends or in 12 hour shifts
- People who have to drive 2-3 hours
- Poor people who can’t afford the transportation
- Ethnic Communities who aren’t involved in politics
- People who are traveling out of town
- People who get sick the day of the convention
- Independents that lean Republican
- Democrats that are “Reagan Democrats” and that have been shifting Republican
- Anybody that is not a member of an RPV local affiliate that doesn’t get updates
- People who don’t get party emails but still vote
- Non-activists, but people who care enough to vote

Last Friday night, Josh and I debated this topic before the Northern Virginia TEA Party in Burke. I want to thank Josh for accepting the TEA Party invitation and participating in the debate with me.
Josh was a thoughtful advocate for his position, which he lays out in this post. I was pleased, however, that he conceded conventions might be a better way to select nominees for down ballot races, such as for County Sheriff. I don’t want to mischaracterize his remarks — he conceded that conventions MIGHT be better in those circumstances — he did not state categorically that they ARE better in those circumstances.
Nonetheless, while I recognize many will agree to disagree, I believe this matter deserves far better airing out and public debate than a mere recitation over the number of participants in primaries over those in conventions (there is no dispute that more PEOPLE vote in a primary than at a convention), or a transparent defense of one over the other based on one’s support for a given candidate. The latter version of this argument usually goes something like this: “Well, I normally support [method A], but in THIS race, I support [method B] because ….” — and the because is designed to hide the REAL reason, which usually is, “because I support Candidate X, and Candidate X wants [method B].”
To his credit, Josh stuck to the more intellectually honest defense of primaries, and the questions from the audience reflected a debate over the abstract merits/demerits of each method, rather than an applied test to individual candidates.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the superior merits of conventions in any arena. I genuinely believe this is a topic few have thought out fully. Even for those who will never support conventions, I believe there is a benefit to hearing and understanding the full case why conventions are superior and why primaries are just so terrible.
Again, thanks to Josh and those who came out last Friday night to hear the discussion.
Thanks for making the trustworthy attempt to explain this. I feel very sturdy approximately it and wish to be informed more. If it’s OK, as you reach extra intensive knowledge, would you thoughts adding extra posts very similar to this one with additional info? It might be extremely helpful and helpful for me and my colleagues.