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.
- Can you pass the U.S. citizenship test?
- W. Bradford Wilcox: The new progressive...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Are...
- In our opinion: Don't 'Army-ize' local police...
- Charles Krauthammer: The jihadi logic
- John Hoffmire: To feed the world, we must...
- Letter: Singles solution
- My view: Utah, where do you stand on marriage?
- My view: Utah, where do you stand on... 96
- Letter: Bush dilemma 2.0 39
- W. Bradford Wilcox: The new progressive... 28
- George F. Will: Obama needs Congress to... 27
- In our opinion: How committed are... 26
- Can you pass the U.S. citizenship test? 22
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Are... 20
- My view: Intergenerational poverty the... 19