While the country may not have recognized the impact of political scientists on the 1980 major party presidential conventions, we were indeed there. At least 19 known political scientists were among the 5381 Democratic delegates and alternates in New York City in August, and one known political scientist was among the 3988 Republican delegates and alternates in Detroit in July.

These relatively rare birds who combine the study and teaching of politics with the doing were asked by PS to write short essays on their observations of the delegate selection processes and of the conventions themselves. In addition, two staff participants, John F. Bibby, a veteran of five Republican conventions, and Elaine C. Kamarck, self-styled “hackademic” who served as Executive Director of the 1980 Democratic Platform Committee, have contributed thoughtful comments on their perspectives. Finally, Byron E. Shafer, political scientist practicing his profession, is the only one of our contributors to have observed both 1980 conventions.

I must admit that, after more than a decade of teaching and researching political parties, I found being selected to and participating in the 1980 Democratic National Convention an exhiliarating experience.

The Alabama delegate-selection process was a very competitive primary with extensive activity by the Carter and Kennedy organizations and by the individual delegate candidates. In varying degrees, the delegate candidates stumped their constituencies with personal appearances, letters, rallies, sample ballots, newspaper ads, group endorsements, and assorted other campaign gimmicks.

The selection process consisted primarily of a statewide primary (1) to allocate Alabama's delegates and alternate delegates among the presidential candidates, and (2) to elect the members of that delegation. Over 500 candidates ran for the 45 delegate and 32 alternate delegate positions in that primary. The primary actually was conducted by congressional district, with 33 candidates running for four delegate and three alternate delegate positions in my CD. The ballot was structured by sex (females listed first) and the voter was instructed to vote for up to four females and up to four males. Delegates were allocated to presidential candidates according to a formula which was roughly proportional; and individual delegates were selected by an equally fair but more complex formula.

My experiences as a delegate to the 1980 Republican National Convention seem to reflect the role of party professional more than that of political amateur. The professional seeks party unity, supports the nominee despite disagreements on issues, and works for the party year after year, win or lose, whether or not he likes the current candidates or some issue stands of the party (Soule and McGrath, 1975).

Having been active in the Republican Party for 12 years, including service on the state committee, as chairman of the Second Congressional District Committee, and currently as chairman of the State Platform Committee, I presumably qualified as a professional in terms of length and character of involvement (Roback, 1975). Furthermore, this service provided the wide recognition within the party that has traditionally been important for selection as national delegate by the Maine State or Congressional District Conventions.

During the early 1960s, political scientists were afforded an opportunity to serve as participant-observers at both national party conventions under the convention fellowship program of the old National Center for Education in Politics (NCEP). With NCEP sponsorship, political scientists attached themselves to state delegations, convention committees and candidate organizations to observe at first hand the work of the conventions. A significant segment of our knowledge of conventions was derived from the writing of these NCEP fellows (see, for example, Paul Tillet, editor, Inside Politics: The National Party Conventions, 1960, which was cited frequently in the early editions of such standard texts as Polsby and Wildavsky's Presidential Elections. The NCEP fellows' work also provided a basis for more sophisticated research. Although the NCEP has lapsed, its national convention and national committee fellowship programs resulted in continuing participation by political scientists at Republican national conventions.

Involvement at the staff level in Republican conventions by political scientists has been most extensive in the work of the Committee on Resolutions (Platform). Arthur L. Peterson, formerly of Ohio Wesleyan University and now Dean at Eckard College, was a key staff member (Executive Director in 1964, 1968, 1972) of the Platform Committees between 1960 and 1976.

Upon advancement to candidacy in the political science department at the University of California, Berkeley, I joined the staff of the Democratic National Committee as Research Director for the Commission on Presidential Nomination and Party Structure. What was to be a short-term job ended up as a three and a half year commitment to the Democratic Party as I became, seriatim, program director for the Midterm Conference, executive director of the commission which established state party compliance with the delegate selection rules, and executive director of the 1980 Platform Committee.

During my first month at the National Committee I had the pleasure of meeting one Mark Siegel, a political scientist with several years of involvement in national politics. One afternoon we were discussing the experiences of academic political scientists turned practitioners. Mark coined a term I have used frequently since then—“hackademic”—or someone who is partially an academic and partially a political hack.

Walter Beach has provided a roster of political scientists as delegates and alternates to national party conventions and short essays by a number of them. Elaine Kamarck and John Bibby have contributed some more extended thoughts on political scientists as campaign operatives and party officials at national party conventions. And I have been asked to add a few words on political scientists as, well, political scientists in the same locale.

I doubt that many political scientists who have been convention delegates would trade the experience. Delegate status is not a particularly good way to observe the full convention as an institution, or to get a sense of the convention in the larger political system. But it is the best means for examining the micropolitics of the convention, i.e., the small discussions and bargains, or the utilization of a delegate's time, and it is perhaps the quintessential way to develop an appreciation for the impact of the convention as a social context—as a peculiar, small, short-lived world unto itself.