To the Point: Do Political Conventions Really Matter Anymore?
To the Point provides insights from AU faculty experts on timely questions covering current events, politics, business, culture, science, health, sports, and more. Each week we ask one professor just one critical question about what’s on our minds.
By all measures, it’s been an extraordinary year for presidential politics, most recently last week’s Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Amidst rumors of BeyoncéÌýand Taylor Swift appearances (both unfounded), more than 26 million people tuned in to watch the final night of the convention when Vice PresidentÌýKamala Harris officially accepted her party’s nomination for president.Ìý
But in the bigger picture in terms of the nomination process, how much do political conventions really matter anymore? In the past, delegates gathered during conventions to determine their presidential nominee—a process that was filled with behind-the-scenes dealmaking. But now, primaries and caucuses determine the candidates far ahead of the party conventions, and their nominations at conventions are mostly a formality. Ìý
This got us wondering how and when everything changed—and why. We turned toÌýAllan J. Lichtman and asked him to share some historical perspective and weigh in on the impact and importance of modern political conventions. Lichtman is an Â鶹´«Ã½ Distinguished Professor of History and the author of 11 books including The Case for Impeachment (Dey Street Books, 2017). He appears onÌýLichtman LiveÌýevery Thursday at 7 p.m. EST atÌý.Ìý
What is the history of conventions, and how much do they really matter now?Ìý
Party nominating conventions are not what they used to be. From their inception in the 1830s through the mid-twentieth century, conventions nominated presidential candidates. No longer. Since the 1970s, voters have nominated candidates through open primaries and caucuses, with conventions rubber-stamping the winning candidate. In earlier times, conventions nominated presidential candidates through dealmaking and compromises. Often, delegates plowed through multiple ballots before deciding on a nominee.Ìý
Among Democrats, the 1952 Convention nominated Franklin Pierce on the 49th ballot. The 1912 Convention nominated Woodrow Wilson on the 46th ballot, and the 1924 Convention set a record when it nominated John W. Davis on the 103rd ballot. The 1932 Convention nominated Franklin Roosevelt on the 4th ballot after he offered Speaker of the House John Nance Garner of Texas the vice presidential nomination for backing from the crucial Texas delegation. The 1952 Convention nominated Adlai Stevenson on the 3rd ballot. Among Republicans, the 1880 convention nominated James A Garfield on the 36th ballot. The 1920 convention nominated dark-horse candidate Warren Harding on the 10th ballot after the leading contenders deadlocked. The 1940 Convention nominated Thomas Dewey on the 3rd ballot.Ìý
The nominating process changed in 1968. After anti-war candidate Senator George McGovern of South Dakota failed to gain the nomination, party bosses offered him the consolation prize of heading a committee on delegate selection. The McGovern Commission established a new rule that convention delegates must be selected in open primaries and caucuses. The Republican Party soon followed suit. Since then, the choice of a presidential nominee became a foregone conclusion before the party convention.Ìý
Conventions became pageants, stripped of their nominating function. They now showcase the presidential and vice-presidential nominees and make the case for their reelection. There is no evidence, however, that conventions influence the outcome of presidential elections, although they sometimes produce a temporary bump in the polls.Ìý
Conventions, however, can elevate the profile of speakers. Ronald Reagan delivered the most memorable speech of the 1976 Republican Convention that helped propel him to the 1980 nomination. Barack Obama’s stirring speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention led to his nomination in 2008. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s performance at the 2024 Democratic convention raised her profile as a potential future contender for the high office.Ìý
Conventions do not predict election results. Still, Democrats this year should be pleased. They successfully introduced Vice President Harris to a public that knew little about her and developed the themes that will guide their campaign: democracy vs. authoritarianism, reproductive freedom vs. restrictions on women’s right to choose, support for the working class vs. the rich and powerful, optimism and unity vs. darkness and division, collective security vs. America First.Ìý
About Professor Allan J. Lichtman
Professor Lichtman received his PhD from Harvard University in 1973 with a specialty in modern Â鶹´«Ã½ history and quantitative methods. He became an Assistant Professor of History at Â鶹´«Ã½ in 1973 and a Full Professor in 1980, and a Distinguished Professor in 2011. He received the Scholar/Teacher of the year award for 1992-93. He has published 11 books and several hundred popular and scholarly articles. He has lectured in the US and internationally and provided commentary for major US and foreign networks and leading newspapers and magazines across the world. He has been an expert witness in some 100 civil and voting rights cases. His book,ÌýWhite Protestant Nation: The Rise of the Â鶹´«Ã½ Conservative MovementÌýwas a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award in nonfiction. His co-authored book with Richard Breitman,ÌýFDR and the Jews, won the National Jewish Book Award Prize in Â鶹´«Ã½ Jewish History and was a finalist for theÌýLos Angeles TimesÌýbook prize in history. His book,ÌýThe Case for Impeachment,Ìýwas a national independent bookstore bestseller. Lichtman's prediction system, the Keys to the White House, has correctly predicted the outcomes of all US presidential elections since 1984. He was listed by rise.global as #85 among 100 most influential geopolitical experts in the world and received the lifetime achievement award from Who's Who.Ìý
The opinions expressed in this interview are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of Â鶹´«Ã½.