Replies

In the last 20-30 years, since the days of party-boss brokered conventions

That's been going on since the inception of conventions. there's a great story on how Lincoln was nominated by the party bosses.

So you may not get the 'message' that's imparted when party activists and the base refuse to vote.

The message remains the same. Those who stay home don't care or maybe are sulking with a "take my ball and go home" attitude.

Those who actually care and are responsible - if alienated - will go out and vote for another candidate. That's a message sent by someone who cares about the nation - not someone who stays home.

The rise of media has meant the decline of importance of conventions as candidates are selected by the popular vote through the media and not by by convention deals. The saying is that Lincoln would not have won nomination in today's politics but Clinton never would have been nominated by party bosses in convention.

Actually, I think the vote decline started when television started showing us what kind of weirdos both parties contained.

Before that time, people could think that it was just their own delegates who were, well, odd. But the conventions made it clear the two parties were the Nutball Express.

Ever see the Libertarians on CSPAN? How about the 2000 Reform Party nuttiness?

In any given year, it's pretty much a tossup which convention will prove more boring/embarassing to the public.

Television has not been kind to politics.