Boyack ("No caucus means fly-over counties," Oct. 11) doesn't seem to understand the difference between "disenfranchising" someone and simply making his vote proportional to actual percentages. I can understand the strategic value the caucus system represents to a highly motivated group of activist idealogues, and it's obvious that's the standpoint Boyack is coming from.
The fact is, the caucus system allows for a small, motivated minority to have an amount of influence over the choice of candidate that is wildly disproportionate to that group's actual representation among the populace. That's a double-edged sword.
A process that depends on small, sparsely attended meetings that political hobbyists are accustomed to controlling may be easy to take over by bringing a bunch of activist friends to a caucus meeting, but that also makes them easier to buy out (due to the small numbers involved) with the exact sort of big-money conspiracy that opponents of Count My Vote fear.
I can say confidently I'm as much a limit-government guy as any voice in this debate, but I don't want that agenda being accomplished via a process that is at odds with voters' intent. That only discredits the idea and antagonizes people.
- In our opinion: Paul Ryan's promising...
- Dan Liljenquist: The economic impact of...
- Perceptions of Obama and his policies at home...
- Join the discussion: Is feminism misunderstood?
- Involve Utahns in national monument designations
- In our opinion: Timing is right for the...
- My view: Utah's Constitution requires state...
- In our opinion: Federal contracting executive...
- Lawrence and Windsor won't trump Utah... 115
- In our opinion: The Affordable Care Act... 79
- In our opinion: The long-term outlook... 51
- Can a news channel 'solve problems'? 50
- Capitalism and the common good:... 41
- Join the discussion: Is feminism... 39
- In our opinion: Timing is right for the... 39
- My view: A global warming solution to... 36