I love the silly season where we go back and forth on this meaningless issue. Yes, I said meaningless. Why is it meaningless? Because I have yet to be convinced by anyone that one method over another ensures a stronger nominee for any office. This new spat over military voters is an important one, don't get me wrong. It is why I support our current system, an open primary. Conventions are simply a pain in the ass all around, and closed primaries (or party registration) just further institutionalized political control in the party and not with the people. Both keep new voters out, and do so on purpose.
But on the merits, it's not like a primary is somehow without its own flaws - particularly the costs. Primaries are front-runner favored and makes it harder for insurgent candidates to get a foothold because it costs so much to run statewide. Now you might ask, "Chris, don't we want statewide candidates with money and resources?" Sure, but primaries are, in my opinions, dominated by big money and its hard for candidates closer to the ground win. It will be even hard if we have party registration and put the party in charge who can and can't vote. Conventions are what they are. A giant inconvenience, closed to new voters who don't know the procedure, and ultimately more difficult for every day folks to attend.
I fully expect SCC to change the method from primary to convention. I hope only that they decide to change its location from Richmond to somewhere else. I'd personally think Charlottesville would be good, as would Virginia Beach (just for me, since I'd like to visit).
In the end, these exercises we do every year over this issue is just a way for the insiders to argue with each other and jockey for control. It bears no real outcome in how our nominees will do because that is entirely up to the nomiee themselves and the campaigns they wage. We did just fine with conventions in 2009 as we did with primaries in 2010.
Probably the most informative discussion on conventions v. primary was done in 2008 by SCC member David Ray. It's REALLY worth a read.
http://shaunkenney.com/2009/06/david-ray-convention-or-primary/
Posted by: Greg L | May 28, 2012 at 07:45 PM
I have long been a supporter of conventions over primaries. That having been said, I think it would be a mistake to change from one to the other once the decision already has been made.
The more vexing question is why the SCC thought it had the authority to set the method for nomination so far in advance, when they all knew that a new SCC would be elected in the interim. That may give this SCC the hook it needs to justify is reconsideration of the method.
Posted by: James Young | May 28, 2012 at 08:13 PM
I think Young has it right, good or bad a decision was made many months ago and candidates and possible candidates have made their decisions accordingly. You can't go back now.
Posted by: Ghost of Alexander Hamilton | May 29, 2012 at 06:57 PM
Sure you can. The proposed convention would be a year out. Of course you can change it back and restore the chi balance of the universe.
Posted by: Ghost of Aaron Burr | June 01, 2012 at 11:16 AM
Having just seen how well conventions work in the 11th, do you really want to go through that statewide?
Primaries are both cleaner and more inclusive. Go with the ballot box whenever you can.
Posted by: Bruce | June 01, 2012 at 01:53 PM
I will say Bruce that the 2009 statewide convention came off beautifully and really launched the ticket into the fall. It can work both ways on both choices.
Posted by: Chris | June 01, 2012 at 02:33 PM
The 2009 statewide convention was a coronation for the top of the ticket, and the only thing up for a vote was the bottom of the ticket. There is a huge difference between choosing an AG candidate (only) by convention, where 90%+ of Republican voters probably wouldn't bother voting in a primary for that position alone, and choosing the top of the ticket that way.
Posted by: Lillian | June 02, 2012 at 11:39 AM
Actually is AG AND LG . . . Patrick Muldoon was challenging Bill Bolling. It speaks to the volatile nature of conventions because in 2008 we had one for both a Senate seat and the state party chairmanship and it was terrible but a year later we had one essentially for "the bottom of the ticket" and it was huge.
There is no doubt in my mind that that Convention helped launch our ticket to victory. I was there I felt the energy and momentum shift during the day. It was pretty awesome.
Posted by: Chris | June 02, 2012 at 11:55 AM
As someone who was a precinct captain and regional coordinator for several precincts throughout 2009 (i.e. for the special election in February and the general election in November), I did not sense any shift coming out of the convention. In Fairfax we had almost won the Chairmanship of the county in February and did win the Braddock Supervisor seat in March. That's where our momentum was coming from. Add in disasterous policies coming from across the river, a really strong GOP candidate for Governor, and a really lame Democrat opponent who couldn't turn out the base in Northern Virginia, and we had a banner year. I had tons of volunteers that year, and never met a one who said it was the convention that got them involved.
Now, I was at the 2009 convention, and it was a pretty good rally, but honestly the only part that was uniquely electrifying was Adnan Barqawi's speech. Maybe that's my impression because I didn't get bused in to vote for one candidate--I signed up because I felt I should as an active Republican. But I was still undecided about the AG candidate until I got to the floor of the convention and could see that one of my two finalists had a snowball's chance in you-know-where. Then I thought, let's just get this over with in one ballot so I can go home to my baby.
Posted by: Lillian | June 04, 2012 at 07:45 AM
You felt the energy shift in a room full of dedicated GOP activists who paid money to be there, and think we won in the general election because of that?
Posted by: Stephen Spiker | June 04, 2012 at 10:45 AM