And by that, I mean you had delegates who came to a convention and they wouldn't really know for sure who would be the nominee who would come out of that convention in most cases because not only were the delegates divided but they also were not pledged undyingly to a particular candidate.
And the result of all this was that the convention was a real process and in a way it was a reflection of democracy because you had people from all over the country, from the elite, from the leadership of Congress, from the rank and file, from the grassroots, all getting together.
As parties began to develop around the turn of the 19th century, you had party nominees for President nominated in caucuses made up of party members in Congress.
By the 1960's, Americans are saying they think it's a bad thing to have nominees chosen in conventions because those are bosses and party leaders and they have their own prejudices. It is a much more democratic thing to choose nominees in presidential primaries across the country.
First of all, there's no mention of political parties in the Constitution, so you begin American history with not only no political conventions but also no parties.
For most of American history, Americans had a lot of leaders and institutions and party leaders and party conventions.
From the beginning of the presidential nominating conventions in the 1830's really through the 1950's, you had conventions that actually did real business.
It seemed such a good idea, and so the result is that really from the 1830's on you had presidential nominees getting the nomination in conventions.
Oftentimes during the period in which conventions really did business, you had situations where the delegates were divided and you would have ballot after ballot before there was a final nominee.
So if 1960 had occurred under the old convention system, Kennedy would have had a very hard time getting the Democratic nomination because he would have been rejected by all those people who had worked with him in Washington.
So the result was that as one approached a political convention for most of the 19th century and for most of the 20th century until the 1960's, part of the drama was the fact that you didn't know ultimately who was going to be the nominee at the end of that convention week.
So the result was that in many cases the conventions really did represent the underlying electoral topography of the United States.
So what you see mirrored in the system is a change from the old faith in representative democracy in which some decisions were made by leaders and representatives, to an almost automatic feeling that any decision that is made by the electorate is going to be better than a decision made by any elite.
The founders were very worried that if parties developed in America, you might have something like the modern Italian system, where you have 20 different parties that divide Congress and the country and can't govern.
The Founding Fathers would be sorry to see that America had become so divided and factionalized.
Then you get to the last half of the 20th century, Americans are getting very skeptical about their leaders and their institutions, and another place that is affected is parties and conventions.
You have had presidential candidates over the last 30 years who would have had a very hard time getting nominated under the old system. One example is John Kennedy.
Maybe! Maybe! Maybe if your aunt had a beard, she'd be your uncle.
That's what the cat said to the canary when he swallowed him - 'You'll be all right.'
When you're dealing with monkeys, you've got to expect some wrenches.
You can share a link to this page with your friend!