Millions are spent on conventions held to nominate each party’s candidate. I had assumed that the candidates’ campaign committees paid for it, but in a recent news article on this subject, republican Tom Coburn proposed that both parties refund millions of taxpayer dollars for these conventions. The nominees are a fait accompli. I suppose that most states want to have a say about who they support, but really - so much money for something that’s been decided? And then there’s the inauguration and celebratory balls (I don’t know who pays for those). If Obama is re-elected, why do we need another inauguration ball?
I would say, bring back the real conventions. They avoided nominating fringe extreme candidates. Only the most committed vote in primaries and they are the ones deciding policies now. Primaries were originated as a way to democratize the nominating process, but have not and should be abandoned as a failed project. And I would like to see runoffs in the general elections, so that a Nader (or, for that matter, a Perot) could not destroy a candidate.
An interesting idea, but not too likely to catch on. The parties get hours of coverage (publicity) on the news, so they have no real incentive to stop having conventions. I’m not sure what funding the government provides (direct subsidy, or just increased security and public services necessary to hold a convention), but the people who decide what the government spends its money on are members of the parties, so I don’t see them putting a stop to it, either.
This problem has solved itself, since neither party is going to accept taxpayer funding for the conventions or the general election campaign this year, or probably in any future year. Neither party is willing to accept the spending limits that accompany acceptance of public funds.