Permit me to ask a simple if provocative question: Why bother to arrange Democratic and Republican National Conventions in 2008?

After all, it is a foregone conclusion that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee. There is no chance of an upset victory or darkhorse nominee. (Hillary is not going to glide onto centre stage to spoil the day. And even Bill�s speech is given a 5 second delay, just to be on the safe side.)

It is a foregone conclusion that John McCain will be the Republican nominee. Again, there is zero chance of an upset victory or darkhorse nominee. (Jeb will have to wait.)

Oh sure, Denver and Minneapolis/St.Paul will welcome the significant influx of income, as will the various and sundry service providers (from hotels to hookers). But couldn�t those tens of millions of dollars be better spent on a more noble cause?

Oh sure, for the political fringe (outside and inside the convention halls), the conventions are a welcome opportunity to steal the limelight for one�s favourite cause. But certainly even that is insufficient reason to defend such events. No?

To me the staging of these 2008 events is a mystery.

Entertaining? Only for the most diehard supporters, and for the emotionally or chemically inebriated. (There may be considerable overlap here.)

Politically important? Hardly! Neither convention is a "political workshop" where the meaningful shaping of policy takes place. (In fact, considerable effort is usually made to avoid substance or commitment.)

Instead, what we see in both cases is awkward days of self-celebration, and a cheerleading section that numbers in the thousands. By and large the choreography is appalling, and rarely does it make a convincing performance.

So, can someone please give me some good reasons for the unnecessary and costly circus?

Sincerely,
HeartPrayer

You're right, HP. The delegates will have an opportunity to formally cast their ballots, making the choice of candidates official, but as you noted, the results are already known -- much like the meeting of the Electoral College following a presidential election.

I view these conventions as mostly hype and a lot of free publicity for both parties. It's usually the time when most Americans start paying closer attention, so it's an opportunity to really showcase the candidates and their platforms. A number of debates will follow during the weeks ahead, which many more will tune into. Conventions signal the beginning of the home stretch to election day.

Does the Electoral College actually meet?
I have never seen this covered in an actual televised news report, nor seen a group photograph from such an event.

Conventions are throw back events with little connection to the original purpose of nominating a candidate (read about the nomination of Lincoln to get an idea of how it was done)- they are very expensive pep rallies.

The Electoral College does not meet - the electors cast their votes about a month after Election Day.

Another thing that I fail to understand is this penchant, this bizarre need, to declare a "victor" so early.

If the split had been less clear-cut (which it wasn�t this year), I think it would have been perfectly legitimate for Barack and Hillary to both walk into the convention as candidates.

For some reason there is insistence on the game being "decided" in the third, or even second, quarter.

HP:
I agree - My guess is it has as much to do with raising money as it does with "party unity."

Electoral College - read this article by Jeff Jacoby in the Globe

A proposed election reform

Thanks. Good article by Jacoby.

Excellent comparison between the Electoral College and US Senate, one that I myself have thought relevant to the debate of how presidents were elected.

If I had my druthers of election reforms, it would not be to do away with the Electoral College, and not how the Senate is elected.

No, my proposal would be far simpler: On each ballot, beneath the slate of candidates to any office -- be it President, Congressman, Senator or Mayor -- I would add one little box, which disgruntled voters could check.

Beside that box would be four words: None of the above

If that box got the most checks, more than any individual candidate, then a new election for that particular office would be required held. With one important stipulation: None of the candidates from the first round would be allowed to partake.

In other words, political parties and individual candidates would really have to take the consequence of the Voice of the People.

What do you think, folks?