As 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
The fact of the matter is that a primary is a practice election. You can find volunteers, raise money, and have a “dry run.” There is no way to recruit volunteers in a convention – people who tell you that are lying. You have a much better shot recruiting volunteers at a polling location rather than talking to a room full of activists who area already on all the email lists. Elections are about winning coalitions: Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. You can do that in a primary and in a general election. Not in a convention where 100% of the people there are voting for you anyways.
Now, this doesn’t mean that primaries are perfect. One of my pro-convention friends did ask me why a precinct should be open all day just so 5 people in one Clarke County  precinct can vote? Fair enough, but I’d rather they be given the same chance to vote that I have. What if those 5 people in the Clarke County precinct are on the list above? With a convention, they might not get a chance to vote at all.
I’ve also heard the argument that parties should pay for their nomination methods. Fair enough, but give me proof that a state convention can raise money. I’d rather donate money to help a candidate win, not pay to a convention so that only a select few can vote.
Feel free to write a comment in agreement or disagreement. But those are my thoughts on why primaries are better then conventions.