Pros, cons of Utah going with open-primary system

One of the reasons Utah's election seasons are so long is that in contested intra-party races, candidates must prepare for party caucuses in March of the election year. That means candidates begin wooing delegates sometimes nearly two years before the actual election. Wouldn't it be better just to hold an open primary election in mid- to late summer and eliminate the caucuses and conventions?

Webb: No. If you want to make Utah elections a playground controlled by powerful incumbents, the rich and famous and their cronies, and lobbyists like Frank, then switch to an open primary. If you want campaigns to be run mostly with big money, focus group-tested sound bites and 30-second TV ads, then switch to an open primary.

On the other hand, if you want Utah elections to be a good mix of grass-roots and general public participation, if you want the little guy to have a chance to be elected, then retain the present system.

Our caucus-convention system is under heavy attack, mostly by liberals who hate the fact that strong conservatives can get elected — even though the perception of conservatives dominating the process is untrue. Consider that in 2004 two moderates, Jon Huntsman Jr. and Nolan Karras, emerged from the state convention, and the strongest conservatives got trounced.

The 2008 convention re-nominated Huntsman, despite his reputation as a moderate. Bob Bennett, now being attacked as a moderate, has won convention support three times. Moderately conservative Republicans who run good campaigns can readily be nominated. After all, delegates are your own friends and neighbors from across the state.

The great virtue of our current system is the opportunity it provides for the little guy. If you're good enough, and work hard enough, you can even break through and win a major election. It doesn't cost a lot to work for a year visiting local government officials, local opinion leaders, previous delegates and political activists to seek their support at caucuses and conventions. But it does take an enormous amount of shoe leather, and it results in a candidate who really knows the issues, knows what people care about, and it creates an army of knowledgeable grass-roots supporters.

By contrast, going directly to an open primary would result in big-money, media-based campaigns with all the substance of a 30-second TV spot. It would magnify the advantages of incumbency, wealth and fame.

Our present system is a hybrid of local, grass-roots participation (and anyone can get involved at that level), combined with full general public participation in primary and general elections. It's the best of both worlds. (Note: Thanks to my Facebook friends who made suggestions for this column.)