X Close

The case for an open convention It would give America a democratic competition

Clinton is anointed in 2016 (Jessica Kourkounis/Getty Images)

Clinton is anointed in 2016 (Jessica Kourkounis/Getty Images)


July 22, 2024   5 mins

Joe Biden is out. For Democrats, that is welcome news. But the party will not rouse Americans by simply throwing the car keys to Vice President Kamala Harris. To stir the people, Democrats need an open convention. By grabbing the veritable lapel of the American public, the party has a chance to steal Trump’s momentum — and America’s attention. In fact, history shows that in the recent past, this was exactly how presidents were nominated.

America’s presidential cycles, dubbed “The Circus” by a Showtime docuseries, have only recently become punishingly absurd ultra-marathons — the 2024 presidential election cycle officially began with the first Republican debate — 444 days before election day. Parties used to choose nominees at quadrennial summer conventions at which delegates from each state would gather to nominate a presidential ticket. Then over several hot summer days, candidates debated while insiders took stock of their political chops and electability. These conventions were essentially primaries writ small and in-brief. Delegates voted. Nominees were chosen. And the consequent presidential campaigns were measured in days (approximately100) — not years.

But choosing presidents via these closed sessions of party insiders understandably had its detractors. And in the early 20th century, good government progressives felt the need to challenge the monopoly power of party bosses. And so, the goo-goos, as the press labelled them, established presidential primaries. Reformers believed primaries would curb the power of party bosses, ease corruption, and make democracy more responsive to popular sentiments. By 1916, 20 scattered states hosted presidential primaries. But dubbed “beauty contests” by journalists, the primaries held no actual power. A candidate could prove their electability by winning one, but that state’s convention delegates were not required to support them. Voters turned out sporadically. Most candidates ignored them.

“Presided over by the educated middle classes, primaries offer only the illusion of direct democracy and legitimacy.”

In postwar America, however, that calculus changed. In 1930, fewer than one-in-five Americans held high school diplomas; a paltry 3.9% graduated from college. By the Seventies, those numbers had tripled. Meanwhile, per capita GDP had nearly quintupled. In this milieu, a new mass demographic was born, the educated middle class. A mix of economics and vocation, the educated middle class are lawyers, engineers, teachers, doctors, and journalists. Not quite rich but comfortably affluent, they were blessed with leisure time. And this class no longer treated politics as spectator sport — they wanted to participate. Participatory democracy, to them, ensured greater accountability.

In 1952 their presidential candidate, Tennessee senator Estes Kefauver, challenged Harry Truman in the New Hampshire Democratic primary. Folksy, cerebral, and media savvy, the Tennessean clubbed the sitting president, 54-46%. The drubbing forced Truman into retirement; Kefauver went on to win 12 of 15 primary contests. But Kefauver never stood a chance of being nominated. Party bosses knew a secret the larger public did not — the Tennessean’s alcoholism. Kefauver’s boozing was prodigious even in an era in which crapulence was the norm. The party bosses won out. But Kefauver made the primaries, and the educated middle class, matter.

Instead of Kefauver, Democrats, at the 1952 open convention, nominated Illinois Governor, Adlai Stevenson. Generations before Barack Obama, the Illinoisan tickled the educated middle class to their cockles with stirring rhetoric. Forgetting Kefauver, they dubbed themselves Stevensonians, and flocked into the Democratic Party. In so doing, the educated middle class gained power in the Democratic Party far beyond their numbers.

While primary contests did matter, convention delegates still possessed the ultimate power to choose a nominee. In 1960, erstwhile Stevensonians boosted John Kennedy to primary wins. This, along with Kennedy’s charisma, pushed party bosses to relent. But eight years later, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who never even entered a primary contest, took the nomination over Senator Eugene McCarthy, who had split primary wins with the assassinated Robert Kennedy. Outraged at the disregard of primary voter sentiment, young protesters in league with old Stevensonians tore Chicago asunder. Afterwards, activists championed the 1970 “McGovern reforms”. This fundamentally changed the nominating process. Starting in 1972, the reforms made primaries and caucuses binding. If a candidate won a state contest, delegates were compelled to support them at the convention. “The Circus” was born.

Party bosses no longer ruled; But the educated middle class did.

On average, 27% of registered voters turn out for primaries. And these voters are overwhelmingly from the educated middle class. In any election, the college degreed are 50% more likely to vote than a high school graduate. But this is even truer for primaries. The standard primary goer is twice as likely to have studied beyond a bachelor’s degree as the average voter. So the McGovern reforms, far from a democratic revelation, have given the educated middle class an outsized voice in American politics. More partisan and ideological than the normie voter, they donate, volunteer, and vote for candidates who reside on the ideological edge of their party.

Well-intentioned, the McGovern reforms gave birth to our hyper-partisan presidential politics, the toxins of which now flow downstream to contaminate even local races.

Yes, the Democrat’s normie-in-chief, Joe Biden, won the 2020 nomination. Covid and the spectre of Trump prematurely curtailed the primary season. With every other major contender, except Pete Buttigieg, vying for the Brahmin Left’s vote, Biden had the normie lane to himself.

But there is nothing sacrosanct about the present system. In clinching the GOP and Democratic nominations, Trump and Biden won approximately 10% of all voters in the 2024 primaries and caucuses. This is scarcely “Vox Populi, Vox Dei”.

But an open convention would be a television show without a script. Delegates, on live national television, debate and mull the strengths and weaknesses of the major candidates. Every state delegation votes. Those votes would be weighted to each state’s overall population. It is the candidate’s job to woo the delegation. The first candidate to win a majority of delegates votes, 1,990, votes nabs the nomination.

Presided over by the educated middle classes, primaries offer only the illusion of direct democracy and legitimacy. Whereas a motley collection of 4,672 convention delegates, mostly officeholders and activists, is an imperfect, yet reasonably fair reflection of the Democratic ranks. Women, minorities, union members, and local party officials comprise the delegate ranks. The nominee, by necessity, will be someone with appeal to the party’s diverse ranks. The novelty of an open convention will bring other-worldly ratings. The eventual nominee will be awash in campaign funds.

But the political geography is clear. To win, a Democrat must sweep Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. A ticket combining the popular Democratic governors of two of those three states, Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer and Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro, possesses an enormous homefield advantage. An open convention will allow Democrats in the coming weeks to vet candidates and weigh all possibilities. In the coming weeks, delegates will watch televised debates. They can even attend a live campaign event and sense the crowd’s electricity. They have plenty of time to assess the cut of a candidate’s jib and how that jib is received by their Democratic friends, family, and party ranks.

Ninety-two years ago, in 1932, Democrats met in Chicago, to nominate a president. The global economy was in freefall. Fascists were on the march. After several rounds of convention ballots, Southern, Northern, conservative and progressive Democrats coalesced around FDR. In an era before the Internet, jet airplanes, television, or Zoom, Roosevelt ran a successful 100-day national campaign, from a wheelchair.

Next month, Democrats, like 1932, convene in Chicago. The stakes are jarringly similar.

An open convention is Trumpism’s Kryptonite. Trump feeds on political cynicism. The fission generated by actual democratic competition is a living, tangible negation of Trump’s nihilism.

An open convention offers the best and final chance to nominate a president who, like the Biden of old, understands normie lives and speaks fluent Middle American. That, and only that, can beat Donald Trump.


Jeff Bloodworth is a writer and professor of American political history at Gannon University

jhueybloodworth

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

17 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Martin M
Martin M
3 months ago

An excellent article! Is all that going to happen though?

Geoff W
Geoff W
3 months ago

Amusing to see a university professor inveighing against “the educated middle class,” and omitting his own profession from the list of theirs.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
3 months ago

We all know the following is true.
If Trump had been murdered, Joe Biden would still be running today.

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
3 months ago

What no analyst seems to be considering is that Biden pulling out in July might have been the plan all along to give Kamala Harris the nomination without her having to do what she is incapable of doing – winning primaries. If this is too far-fetched for you, remember that the Democrats have done this before. Covid was used to prevent a challenge to Biden developing in 2020 and in 2016 Sanders was robbed of the nomination because the Clintons had bailed out the party bankrupted by Obama.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
3 months ago

My question is who among the Democrats likes Kamala Harris so much that they’d be willing to resort to shenanigans to put her up as the candidate? Hillary I get because the Clinton machine is powerful. Biden I get because the Democrats desperately wanted someone other than Sanders to be their nominee against Trump. Two populist candidates rejected by the donor class would have been downright apocalyptic for a certain small slice of the population. Why Harris though? There’s no Bernie to fret over this go round, but there is an RFK who could easily pull votes from Democrats who dislike Harris. If this was the plan, it’s a stupid plan and the Democrats are even stupider than I thought.

Malcolm Webb
Malcolm Webb
3 months ago

Dream on. The Democrat Elites will not risk it. Better to control the succession even if the chosen one is a loser. There is always next time and The Deplorables must be kept in their place. Losing one race is better than losing control.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
3 months ago
Reply to  Malcolm Webb

Precisely. As much as I dislike Trump personally, his nomination was the best thing for the populist movement to further cement their control of the party and marginalize the old neocon establishment. The only thing better would have been if Trump had put forward someone like J.D. Vance to begin with and given him or her his full endorsement, thus giving his followers someone new to rally around while denying the media their chance to once again hammer away at Trump’s many personal flaws and abrasive personality. Whether Trump wins or loses, it’s a result I can live with because one of the parties at least won’t be under the thumb of the donor class. The Democrats won’t dare nominate someone they can’t control. America tried electing a reformer in 2008. Obama campaigned on hope and change then delivered corporate bailouts and a healthcare law that is hated by patients and medical professionals but loved by insurance conglomerates.

Ardath Blauvelt
Ardath Blauvelt
3 months ago

The only problem is, the Democrat Party has rejected middle America. Thus, Trump exists. It’s a little late for the Dems to start speaking a new language. They made their choice, leaving the vast engine of working America open to a new engineer.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 months ago

Perhaps the author needs reminding that “the case for competition” was rejected by Dems when they elected to rig the primary process so that Joe was essentially the only option. Some guy no one has heard of picked up a few delegates during the sham, which is a few more delegates than Kamala received in 2020 when Dems resoundingly said ‘no’ to her candidacy.
This is the same Dem Party that went out of its way to shut out RFK, Jr. while self-righteously talking about ‘saving democracy.’ This is the same Dem Party that told people to blindly support a corrupt old man, then turned on that old man without a second thought. “But Trump.” Yes, indeed; Trump. And? He was president once before. The country was a lot better off then than it is now.

Arkadian Arkadian
Arkadian Arkadian
3 months ago

I knew hardly any of the stories mentioned here. If anything, thanks for the history lesson!.

jason mann
jason mann
3 months ago

All hail the democracy of a 2 party system. Follow the money. Propaganda is the lifeblood and money fuels propaganda. Whatever. Good article. Back to work. Gotta pay the IRS to maintain the illusion of private property ownership.

Martin Johnson
Martin Johnson
3 months ago

The Democratic Party leaders view an open candidate selection process as kryptonite. They did everything necessary to avoid it in 2016, 2020, and 2024. They would probably like to go back to the “smoke filled rooms” but they certainly do not want to open things up.

Which does not mean an open convention cannot happen if divisions are great enough— but that would not produce what the author dreams of.

Samantha Stevens
Samantha Stevens
3 months ago

For a brief moment, I allowed myself to hope that perhaps a moderate Democratic candidate could arise from the mess of the party at an Open Convention, but alas the decisions were made well before Joe was strong-armed to quit. Kamala has been coronated.
The only reason the Obamas haven’t endorsed her yet is to keep up some absurd illusion that we the people have a choice. Certainly Barack chose her, along with the Clintons.
And almost certainly Kamala will lose. She was a terrible debater in 2020. Biden tasked her with the border, which was like asking her to save the planet. The administration did zero about the border til a month ago. Trump will bury her in the debates.
The Dems tanked Bernie in 2016 for Hillary, forced Klobachur et al to exit the race in 2020 for Biden, and now have anointed Kamala.
When do the people have a choice?

Jonathan Gibbs
Jonathan Gibbs
3 months ago

Please, Ladies and Gentlemen, crowned not coronated.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
3 months ago

Are you serious? The primary system is the only reason any serious change candidate has any chance at all. Party leaders have been trying to control and influence the primary system since it was implemented because they never wanted to cede that power to the people in the first place. The primary movement was the ultimate result of an earlier populist movement, the one that started back in the so-called Gilded Age of the late 1800s, when powerful industrial barons controlled the nominating process and pushed their cronies on the people without the people having much say. The elections of the 1870’s through the 1890’s were a lot like the elections of the 1990’s through 2016, with both candidates being bought and paid for representatives of the elite class. The people’s anger eventually resulted in a strong populist movement to reform the process and eliminate corruption. This populist movement applied pressure to the political machinery. Many of the reforms of FDR can be traced back to the first populist politicians from that era, who despite their lack of success, started an avalanche of public demand for change that the elite class ultimately couldn’t stop. The primaries continued a trend that had already seen states begin to send issues directly to the people through popular referendums, the direct election of Senators, woman’s right to vote, labor laws, etc.

This author just picks this up in 1952, immediately after the New Deal era and WWII had the country in a more democratic mood, a mood that would culminate in one final achievement, the civil rights movement. I don’t know what possessed the Democrats to nominate FDR in 1932, but I doubt they’d do it again. The elites have been trying to assert control ever since FDR, sometimes in obvious ways, like limiting presidents to two terms. Nothing weakens the power of aristocrats like a popular leader. The primaries are, in many ways, the saving grace of American politics. It gives candidates like Trump and Sanders who are reviled by the establishment a chance to take their cases directly to the people and prevail over a reluctant establishment. Without the primary system, there is no MAGA movement, no Bernie Bros. Most of the candidates considered populists or agitators for change would not have been chosen by party bosses. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul come immediately to mind. There are numerous others. The freedom caucus is largely a result of right wing populists and libertarians defeating their establishment backed opponents in primaries. Even more importantly, the primaries judge the mood of at least part of the country. Without the primary system, would there be so much pressure against the establishment for changes? Would we even know that such sentiment exists? Would the elites know and would it check their ambitions? Given how clueless they seem when it comes to the people at the lowest levels, my guess is they’d be going about business as usual with little clue how deep the resentment goes.

Even if the Democrats have an ‘open’ convention, it won’t really be all that open, it will just be a show for public consumption. If it happens, it will mean that the Democrats did the political calculus and deemed that bypassing Harris gives them a better chance to win the election. They’re weighing Harris’s unpopularity and California connection against the risks of angering blacks and the DEI crowd by bypassing a “woman of color” for most likely someone white and maybe even *gasp* a man. How they make these judgements will surely determine the course they take and whether they opt for an ‘open’ convention. If they determine Shapiro/Whitmer gives them a better chance to win for the reasons the author mentioned, they’ll have the open convention, play it up as Democratic like the author says. That is, after all, the way things used to be done. Candidates were routinely chosen for their state of origin more than their ability or policy and vice presidential nominees were also, and sometimes still are even in the primary era.

I will grant that in this unique situation, an open convention might be the best way to go. I’ll even grant that it might be the best way to win any single presidential election. What it isn’t and doesn’t do is give the people a voice in an important part of the political process, and that has consequences that go beyond one or a dozen individual elections. The Democrats might do it just to try and turn a negative into a positive and generate some actual enthusiasm for the nominee, since the default choice of the Vice President is uninspiring to say the least. I couldn’t say it’s the wrong move given the situation. To go back to the old way of doing things full time on the other hand. No thank you.

Christopher Theisen
Christopher Theisen
3 months ago

Any media analyst who says the Democrats need to nominate Biden’s replacement through an open convention has no understanding of practical politics in the US.

The biggest issue: nobody within the Democratic coalition WANTS to run against Harris. And no, that’s not about party leaders fixing the outcome. The timeline is just too short. Even assuming an ambitious Governor wins the party nomination in late August – it will be impossible to fundraise and build a national network of election offices and volunteers within 8 or 9 weeks. It’s not as if this challenger can automatically inherit Biden’s campaign money and campaign infrastructure. According to FEC rules, only Harris can legally do that.

A true primary would have been best, but it’s past time for that. The battleground state of Ohio has threatened to leave the Democratic Presidential candidate off the November ballot papers if a nominee is not chosen prior to the convention which starts August 26. As a result the Democratic party is trying to meet the Ohio deadline by holding an early online roll call nomination process on August 7th. Only Harris is in a position to win that roll call vote.

And there’s yet another reason why an open convention is unlikely. There are significant downsides to winning the nomination. First of all, it means taking away the nomination from a black woman. Large parts of the Democratic coalition will HATE you for doing it and never forgive you. Moreover, Harris has been endorsed by Biden and after voluntarily withdrawing from the campaign, Biden’s become a political saint. Going against the wishes of a hero is a bad look.

Not having an open convention is not a conspiracy. The Democratic party is not anti-democratic. Harris will enjoy an unchallenged “coronation” at the national convention only because her potential challengers are pragmatic and rational. It just makes no sense to challenge her at this time.

T Redd
T Redd
3 months ago

The MEDIA will decide if there is an open convention. They run DC…