What about a Brokered Convention?

CNN host Michael Smerconish this morning posed the question, "Are the Democrats doomed to have a brokered convention?" I object to the word "doomed", as a brokered convention would be an interesting convention, one worthy of tuning in to watch each night, unlike other conventions since 1952, when the Democrats took three ballots to nominate Adlai Stevenson.

Another advantage of the so-called "brokered convention" is that it gives a chance for the super-delegates, i.e., the party leaders, to have an important influence on the outcome. This is always good for a party; i.e., the infamous "smoke-filled room" which historians talk about that nominated Harding in 1920 wasn't really such a bad way to go about picking a nominee.

The current movement away from a convention-based system to a primary and caucus based system occurred in 1972, when the Democrats reacted against the fiasco of 1968, when Humphrey won the  nomination despite not competing in any of the primaries. I was part of the 1972 McGovern campaign, and, in retrospect, it was not a good system. We McGovern supporters were able to control every caucus in Kansas, electing a majority of delegates to the district and state conventions, thereby assuring that all Kansas delegates to the national convention would be McGovern supporters. I will never forget the Reno County Democratic chairman declaring, at the district convention, that "Reno County casts no votes for no candidates!", so disgusted were the rural delegates when it became obvious that McGovern supporters controlled the convention.

This year the Democrats have proportional representation, meaning that a state's delegates will be divided among all candidates receiving at least 15% support. This will serve to diffuse the delegates among the large field, increasing the chances of no first ballot winner. The Super Delegates will  number 785 (out of 4600 total); however, they will not be allowed to vote on the first two ballots. I really hope it goes to a third ballot, so that the entire party can get together and pick a worthy candidate. The failure of the so-called "reforms" enacted after 1968 can be seen in the list of bad candidates the Democrats have nominated starting in 1972. These include McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, and Hillary Clinton. Contrast this with only two good candidates--Bill Clinton and Obama. Two out of nine just isn't good enough!