The Democratic convention is looking more like a papal conclave

The Delegates' Newfound Freedom

Following President Biden's withdrawal, Democratic delegates attending the 2024 convention in Chicago were no longer bound to support a specific candidate, mirroring the independence cardinals experience when entering a papal conclave. According to party rules, delegates become free to vote their consciences when a candidate releases them, which Biden did upon ending his campaign. This marked the first time since 1968 that delegates held such unilateral authority, as post-1968 reforms typically required them to follow the outcomes of state primaries and caucuses.

Theoretically, this freedom allows delegates to nominate any natural-born American citizen aged 35 or older by Inauguration Day, opening the possibility for a wide range of candidates beyond those who competed in the primary season. In practice, however, party leaders moved quickly to consolidate support behind Vice President Kamala Harris, who received Biden's immediate endorsement and subsequently gained backing from numerous Democratic officials and organizations. This rapid endorsement process aimed to prevent the convention from appearing as a brokered negotiation dominated by party elites.

Despite the appearance of openness, delegates remained attentive to public opinion and electoral viability, much like cardinals who, while claiming independence from popular sentiment, ultimately seek a pope who will resonate with Catholics worldwide. The delegates' deliberations were thus shaped by both their personal judgments and an awareness of what would strengthen the party's chances in the general election against Republican nominee Donald Trump.

How the Nomination Process Actually Worked

The 2024 Democratic National Convention ultimately nominated Kamala Harris as the party's presidential candidate, a process that unfolded differently from both a traditional primary-driven convention and a papal conclave. Delegates cast their votes during the convention, with Harris securing approximately 99% of the delegate votes, according to post-convention reports. This near-unanimous support reflected the successful effort by party leaders to unify the ticket quickly after Biden's departure.

Unlike a papal conclave, which requires a two-thirds majority for election and may involve multiple rounds of secret balloting, the Democratic convention operates under a simple majority rule. This threshold has been in place since 1936, after a series of deadlocked conventions in the early 20th century prompted reform. The longest such deadlock occurred in 1926, when it took over a dozen ballots to select a candidate, leading parties to adopt simpler voting rules to avoid prolonged nominations.

Furthermore, the Democratic process lacks the secrecy characteristic of a conclave. Convention proceedings are televised, delegate votes are publicly recorded, and discussions occur in open sessions. In contrast, papal conclaves are held behind locked doors with strict prohibitions on communication with the outside world, and individual cardinal votes remain anonymous even to other participants. This fundamental difference in transparency affects how each body deliberates and reaches consensus.

Historical Context and Evolving Party Dynamics

The comparison to a conclave also invites reflection on how presidential nominations have evolved over time. Before the reforms following the tumultuous 1968 Democratic Convention, party bosses and political professionals played a far more significant role in selecting candidates, often through backroom negotiations and delegate persuasion. Some historians and political scientists argue that this older system occasionally produced stronger candidates and presidents, as it allowed experienced leaders to assess electability and governance skills beyond primary performance.

In recent decades, the rise of primaries and caucuses has shifted power toward voters, making the nomination process more democratic but also more susceptible to the influences of campaign finance, media narratives, and voter polarization. The 2024 situation represented a hybrid moment: while delegates were technically free, the swift endorsement of Harris by Biden and party leaders functioned as a quasi-official signal that guided delegate behavior, blending elements of voter-driven primaries with elite coordination.

This dynamic raises ongoing questions about the ideal balance between grassroots participation and experienced leadership in candidate selection. As parties navigate increasing fragmentation and the challenges of governing in polarized environments, the role of conventions—as both deliberative bodies and ratifying events—continues to be debated among scholars, party officials, and political reform advocates.

Lessons from Comparative Selection Processes

Looking beyond U.S. politics, the papal conclave offers certain procedural elements that some commentators suggest could inform political nominations, though direct transplantation faces significant cultural and institutional barriers. The conclave's emphasis on achieving a broad consensus through its two-thirds requirement (until a potential runoff after 30 ballots) is designed to produce a candidate acceptable to the widest possible segment of the electorate, reducing the risk of a deeply divisive choice.

Proposals for reforming papal elections have included expanding the electorate beyond the College of Cardinals to include bishops or national episcopal conferences, drawing parallels to caucus systems in American politics. However, such changes face resistance due to theological traditions and governance structures within the Catholic Church. Similarly, efforts to alter the U.S. nomination process—such as reintroducing superdelegates with greater influence or modifying delegate binding rules—encounter resistance from those who view primaries as essential to democratic legitimacy.

Both systems also grapple with succession planning. Unlike the Electoral College, which could theoretically serve as a failsafe if a winning candidate dies post-election (though this power was curtailed by a 2019 Supreme Court ruling), the College of Cardinals has no analogous mechanism; a deceased pope triggers an immediate return to conclave. This contrast highlights how different institutions build resilience into their leadership selection processes.

What this means

The 2024 Democratic National Convention will be remembered not only for nominating the first Black woman and first person of South Asian descent to a major party's presidential ticket but also for illuminating the tensions and trade-offs inherent in how democracies choose their leaders. While the comparison to a papal conclave is imperfect—given the stark differences in openness, voting rules, and historical tradition—it serves as a useful lens for examining what we value in nomination processes: broad participation, informed deliberation, timely resolution, and perceived legitimacy. As political parties continue to adapt to changing electorates and technological environments, the lessons from moments like this one will remain relevant to ongoing efforts to strengthen democratic institutions.