Whose Convention Goes First?

Reader Response from The Fray:


As any public-school educated person will tell you (just ask the Republicans), the parties hold their conventions in alphabetical order (or is it numerical?).

--Robert Hurst

(To reply, click here.)


The true focus of the convention has shifted away from the nomination process, toward advertising the party platform. It makes sense that if the convention has evolved into the opening shot for debates, then the traditions respecting how and when conventions are held would also have evolved to resemble the rules governing debates. This evolution would, of course, have happened over the last forty years, as technology(especially television), has made it easier for parties to deliver their messages to the masses, and transformed the convention itself into a "made for TV" production.

--Tony

(To reply, click here.)


The reason behind order that the Democrats and Republicans hold their conventions (with the party out of power going first) is simple: early convention-organizers followed the lead of baseball, America's pastime. The home team always bats last.

--Phil Saucier

(To reply, click here.)

[Note from the Fray Editor: There were other theories based on games and sports. Tom said "For the same reason the challenger enters the ring first in a title fight. One's after it, the other's got it." And Elaine Deering said challenger first was "fair play--giving the outsider a slight edge. Notice how the low scorer in Jeopardy always gets to select the first question in Double Jeopardy?"]


The reason the incumbent party has their convention last is because otherwise they would have little opportunity to react to the message put forth by the party out of power. This party can safely go first because they can argue against the incumbent's last 4-8 years. This seems logical enough, provided that the incumbent party's candidate is either an incumbent candidate, or at least ideologically aligned with the incumbent candidate

--Syd Seale

(To reply, click here.)


The convention order theory would seem to be in line with judicial practice. As many politicians are lawyers, it would probably seem natural for them to use for conventions the order the judiciary imposes in trials, the party in power would be seen as defendants or "the accused," trying to prove that they have done no wrong. The other party is the plaintiff in the case, accusing those in power of being incompetent, etc. As in court cases, the defendant, being considered innocent from the get-go, is given the last word and, thereby, a slight advantage over the state or the accusers who are required to met an evidentiary burden.

--Terry Welch

(To reply, click here.)

(8/3)

• There's More to You Than Your DNA
• Should You Look Into Your Genes? | Q&A
• Home Is Where the Heart Used to Be
• Crime Without Punishment: Flawed Tribunals