Scott G. Winterton, Deseret News
My caucus had a 76 percent increase in turn out compared to 2010. Party rules allowed each delegate nominee to disclose platform planks, employment, personal views and support for individual candidates, etc.
Because of the larger than usual turn-out accompanied by a large number of nominations, nominees were limited to 1 minute to speak. This was hardly enough time to know a nominee's principles, ideals and values which would guide their decisions as they studied the candidates and issues in preparation for the state nominating Convention.
Instead, it appeared that the only item of interest was which candidate(s) the nominee would be supporting. This approach appears to obviate the whole process of delegates being chosen to investigate candidates during the campaign period leading up to convention and then casting ballots at convention based on their investigations.
The caucus approach is supported as being superior to a party primary on the basis that candidates for office are more accountable to the people. However, if delegate votes are tallied on caucus night and not at convention, then I'm not sure electing delegates prior to convention accomplishes anything.
It would appear that a candidate's fate is determined on caucus night and not at convention.
Gerald (Jerry) Nebeker
Other letters about Utah caucuses
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington
- John Florez: Utah's prison relocation is like...
- Greg Bell: Socialism vs. the safety net
- Letter: Patriots or sheep?
- Reconnecting with Cuba is a good move —...
- Carmen Rasmusen Herbert: New Christmas...
- My view: In the name of God?
- My view: Doing away with cursive is bad idea...
- Letter: Patriots or sheep? 62
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington 44
- Greg Bell: Socialism vs. the safety net 43
- Susan Roylance: Definition of the... 35
- My view: Chaffetz named... 34
- Jay Evensen: Cuba not likely to change... 34
- Letter: Patriots or serfs? 33
- My view: Torture, morality and the laws... 30