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.
- My view: The solution to Utah's water problems
- In our opinion: Legislators need to better...
- Dan Liljenquist: What we learned from the...
- My view: Is the Division of Water Resources...
- In our opinion: Research suggests that...
- My view: Get insurance out of health care
- My view: hippies, 2 Hell's Angels, one...
- Last year's Utah Compromise is a model in...
- Richard Davis: Do presidents have to be... 56
- My view: Get insurance out of health care 49
- My view: Obama's veto won't save Obamacare 35
- In our opinion: Attempting to... 32
- My view: 'Death with dignity' and... 27
- In our opinion: Concerned voters a good... 23
- Trump and Sanders 22
- John Hoffmire: Electric cars and the... 20