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.
- Jay Evensen: Obama must make religious... 56
- In our opinion: Supreme Court rules... 35
- In our opinion: Disney outbreak sends a... 29
- Letter: Prison nonsense 28
- Robert Bennett: Obama's State of the... 26
- Letter: Peanut butter ban? 21
- Letter: Idle elimination 19
- Ron Clegg: Primary seat belt law will... 19