|
 Are
Political Conventions Necessary?
By Gov. Howard Dean, M.D.
As the Democratic Convention
begins this week, followed by the Republicans' in September,
journalists who are bored with the scripted proceedings will
write opinion pieces about behind-the-scenes dealings which may
or may not be going on and will raise questions about why conventions
are even newsworthy.
Since 1968, conventions have
been lackluster precisely because the choices of nominees are
far more likely to be made by voters in either party than they
are by backroom deals. This is a huge step forward, but it is
also ancient history for most political reporters and for a great
deal of the voting public.
A huge reform coming out of 1968
was the requirement, at least for the Democrats, that delegations
reflect the diversity of the electorate, but we now take that
for granted as well.
So we are stuck with institutions
that are boring because they have outlived their purpose, which
was to cement backroom deals. I have some suggestions to make
them more relevant:
First the process is still too
closed. While Independents can vote in a few primaries, they
ought to be able to vote in all primaries, choosing between the
Republican and Democratic primaries in each state, but not, of
course, voting in both. The effect will be to get a nominee who
can appeal to the largest group of American voters, those who
identify with neither party.
Second, we ought to use instant
runoff voting first in primaries. Instant runoff voting asks
people to rank candidates in order of preference. In elections
where there are multiple candidates, winners frequently emerge
with vote totals in the 20 40 percent range. Being allowed
to specify a second choice if your candidate does not finish
in the top two will consolidate the vote and build consensus.
Howard Dean's column is continued here.
|
Jeff Parker,
Florida Today. 
