Both political parties are now being criticized for not abandoning the election caucus system. I know that there are problems with the process, but I am glad they didn't abandon the caucus system.
Several years ago, I was asked to run for the Utah House of Representatives. After I was elected by the delegates at the county convention, I was shocked when I was told that to run a successful general election campaign I would have to raise at least $25,000. Fortunately, with our caucus system, getting 60 percent of my district delegates' votes at the convention, I had to finance only the general election.
The current option to the caucus system is an open primary. All candidates would have to finance a primary election, and then the winners would also have to finance a general election. So for the office I ran for, I would have had to raise about $50,000.
Had I known up front that I would have to finance both a primary and a general election, I definitely would not have agreed to run. The caucus system takes away some of the wealth advantage in elections. If someone would come up with a way to improve the system without raising the cost to the candidate, I would be in favor of doing that.
- In our opinion: Boy Scouts of America and...
- Was Hillary right to compare Putin to Hitler?
- My view: History lesson — 'Taking back'...
- Endangered Species Act lost sight of its mission
- Sen. Ted Cruz opens 2014 CPAC with...
- Who are the real heroes of election reform?
- Letter: Religious freedom
- Robert J. Samuelson: Income tax has become a...
- Letter: Minimum Wage insufficient 66
- Has Obama's foreign policy emboldened... 62
- Jay Evensen: Obama could use a dose of... 60
- Letter: Religious freedom 52
- Obama's biggest test: Ukraine 33
- Sen. Ted Cruz opens 2014 CPAC with... 27
- In our opinion: Boy Scouts of America... 27
- Was Hillary right to compare Putin to... 26