As the Republican National Convention (RNC) wraps up on August 30 and as Democrats prepare for their own national convention, there has been a great deal of discussion about the actual significance and importance of presidential nomination conventions in this country.

In the not-so-distant past, nomination conventions were a place where party members debated both who their presidential candidate should be and what that candidate should stand for—or in other words, the party platform. Over last 50 years or so, however, the presidential nomination conventions have become far more ceremonial, with each party’s nominee having secured his general election bid in primaries several months before the convention.

While it might now seem easy to argue that party conventions are now simply a colossal waste of money meant only to serve as a four-day-long press conference for each party’s respective candidate, conventions still hold an important role in national politics in this country; they allow promising future candidates, who would otherwise not receive any attention, a chance to appear on the national stage.

The clearest example of this is Barack Obama’s keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Before that speech, then-State Senator Barack Obama was essentially unheard of at the national level. His now often-discussed speech at that convention catapulted him to the national stage and not only helped his 2004 bid for the Senate but also gave him a foundation for his eventual presidential run.

Another example is the keynote speaker at this year’s RNC, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Though he’s recently gained attention at the national level for his policies and willingness to be brutally honest with constituents in New Jersey, by giving him a keynote address at the RNC, the Republican party has afforded him an unparalleled opportunity to reach a national audience and garner support for a future presidential or senate bid.

Of course, there are other opportunities to gain national media attention in this country, but national conventions hold the unique characteristic of not being related or linked to a specific issue or controversy. While Jan Brewer, for example, gained widespread national media attention for the harsh immigration laws she signed in Arizona, she is now permanently linked to those issues in voters’ minds and thus has already alienated some potential voters if she were to run for national office.

Brewer being thrust into the national media spotlight for being harsh on immigration is in stark contrast to the completely unblemished reputation Barack Obama enjoyed at the 2004 convention.

Presidential nomination conventions allow something very unique in Americans politics to happen: uncontroversial candidates being afforded media attention. While presidential primaries often force candidates far to the left or right of their original positions and national media tends to cover controversial and polarizing figures because they make good news, party conventions provide future candidates for national office with an opportunity to reach a countrywide audience without having to be a polarizing figure. Instead of having to do something drastic or obviously partisan, politicians with aspirations for national office know that if they do their jobs—and do them effectively—they have a good chance of being featured at a national convention and getting the national attention they deserve.