This week, panelists answered the question: Do the political party conventions serve a purpose in the presidential election?
Bill Mifsud: “No, if the political conventions had more drama and two candidates were vying for the party nomination then the conventions would serve a purpose. Since the parties have already nominated their candidates all the conventions now are just prime time, face time for each of the parties candidates.”
Jim West: “Yes. Political conventions may have become 3-day infomercials, but infomercials can have real value. You get to hear complete presentations by each candidate, made by a variety of speakers without immediate rebuttal by the opposing camp. This is more conducive to ‘hearing’ and ‘thinking’ than relying on quick sound bites in the middle of busy days that simply reinforce or challenge existing biases.”
Nants Foley: “This year Mother Nature stepped in and trimmed the length of each one by 25 percent. I think that’s a good start. The conventions do play an essential part in our election process by bringing together the key players to create the party platform and showcase both the candidates and supporters.”
Louise Ledesma: “Yes, these conventions are like a big pep rally to get people excited about the election. I’ve attended state political conventions and they are exciting. The people who attend the national conventions are the main leaders in their parties and their jobs are to really fire up the masses to get out the vote. After listening to several of the speeches from each party, the general public should be able to decide which candidate deserves their vote.”
Ruth Erickson: “No! Now that we have instant, multimedia election news and convention coverage, the multimillion-dollar events need to be cut back! Too many months of campaigning, are covered by more negative than positive ads and daily news programs and discussions, ad infinitum become tedious. By the time election day comes, we’ve been subjected to more speeches, campaigning and fundraising all over the country, and less governing by those who are supposed to be representing their constituents and who were elected to govern their district’s interests!”
Mary Zanger: “Once through the hoop-la, the party differences appear quite evident. From the age and shades of the attendees to the principles espoused. Rather than ‘voter fraud’ we have ‘voter apathy.’ For that the conventions fire up the base. Polls show many people have already decided how to vote. Many have not which means they are still mulling over the images and words presented to them. The conventions seemed to set in motion how people view issues but more importantly how they view issues ignored like wars, the military, the war on drugs, and growing inequality.”
