Editorial: At RNC and DNC, candidates should seize the chance to be candid with voters

National political conventions aren't what they used to be. Although they suffer from a collective loss of drama and suspense, they can and should still matter. And they will, if the Democratic and Republican leadership give voters what they need and deserve over the next two weeks: clear visions of where the parties and their candidates want to take the nation, and clear plans for how to make it happen.

Since we know they won't give us suspense, how about some substance?At one time, political conventions buzzed because they determined the parties' candidates and their stances. Nothing was a foregone conclusion, and the balloting, bargaining and backstabbing were often bareknuckled.

The 1924 Democratic convention went 17 days and 104 ballots, with Prohibition the sticking point, as the "wets" fought for Alfred E. Smith and the "drys" threw their support behind William McAdoo. In the end, neither side was able to triumph, and compromise candidate John W. Davis was chosen.

The 1968 Democratic convention nominated a candidate, Hubert Humphrey, who hadn't participated in a single primary. The event proceeded while protesters and police roiled the Chicago streets outside and a nation watched in shock. But the last suspenseful Democratic convention was in 1980, when Sen. Edward Kennedy tried, and failed, to take the nomination by forcing a vote to free delegates committed to President Jimmy Carter.

The last time the Republican National Convention included an uncertain presidential nomination was 1976, when Ronald Reagan challenged President Gerald Ford, barely falling short.

Without the drama of uncertainty, conventions have grown less exciting, less pivotal, and of less interest to voters. So coverage by television networks, which no longer have the audiences they once did, has dwindled, and the speakers have become mostly show ponies in choreographed made-for-TV events. The prevalence of Twitter and other social media at this year's conventions could lead to more spontaneous information and opinion, but it won't change the fact that the nominees were chosen before the parties got to Tampa, Fla., or Charlotte, N.C.

Even convention debates over official platforms, once crucial in defining party stances on pivotal issues like slavery and civil rights, serve merely as cannon fodder for the opposition. The platforms are often just broad aspirations or sops to the bases. In the case of a proposed Republican plank calling for a ban on abortion with no exceptions, the presidential candidate himself doesn't support the platform.

Yet this year's conventions could be important, for one reason: They may offer the only opportunities, in a bitter multibillion-dollar election war conducted via sound-bite and super PAC proxy, to hear candidates speak at length on their plans for the nation and the tools they'll use to implement them.

Ahead of us lies vicious campaigning focused mostly on why the other guy is horrible. Unsubstantiated allegations will be made by super PACs "not coordinated with the campaigns," then vaguely condemned by the candidates. Nasty truths, half-truths and innuendos will be spooned out in 30-second commercials and 90-second debate responses. It's unlikely any of it will provide the information voters need.

Americans deserve detailed, candid takes on the economy, defense, Social Security and Medicare, the social safety net, big-picture economics and civil liberties and transparency and education. What the candidates signal about foreign policy, particularly at a time when tensions in the Middle East seem to be rising, is important to voters and the world beyond our shores.

The candidates need to seize this opportunity to deliver these messages. It may be the biggest chance they have to act presidential, and our best opportunity to thoughtfully choose between the candidates before the campaigns foul the process.