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.
- Why one Mormon man left Hollywood to be a...
- My view: Non-discrimination laws have a problem
- Doug Robinson: We are in the midst of an era...
- President should not act without...
- In our opinion: No more 'Government Motors'
- Matthew Sanders: Nelson Mandela's goodness...
- Richard Davis: Mandela's greatest achievement...
- Michael Gerson: The gospel according to JC...
- In our opinion: Don't raise the minimum... 65
- My view: Fix Obamacare, don't replace it 61
- Robert Bennett: Create wealth before... 43
- Letter: Doctors unite 40
- Andrew Morriss: No, Congress should not... 39
- Can Mandela's legacy revive the GOP? 29
- President should not act without... 24
- In our opinion: No more 'Government... 24