There they go again. Pro-caucus writers Dee Russell and Gerald Larsen dredged up the same old tired argument against primary elections: we foolish, unwashed masses are not bright enough to elect our own leaders and need to rely on delegates who are smarter than we are. What an insult!
They tell us only caucus attendees deserve to vote, since they are the only ones who have the gumption to be involved. Their beloved caucus system disenfranchises those lazy, unmotivated non-attendees: parents of small children, shift workers, missionaries, deployed military. Yeah — why should such sluggards have a voice?
The problem with caucuses isn’t just that those who can’t attend don’t get a vote. The problem is that even those who do attend don’t get a vote of any value! We spend three hours hearing delegate wannabes proclaiming their patriotism and party loyalty. They generally claim to be open-minded (the honest ones who admit supporting particular candidates don’t get elected), and then, instead of voting for candidates who represent our views, we just get to vote for whoever gives the best three-minute spiel on how they can do the thinking for us. I’m sorry, that’s just not right.
A direct primary election is the only fair way for the people of Utah to choose their government leaders.
- In our opinion: Research suggests that...
- Letter: No labels in 2016?
- John Florez: Businesses should help pay for...
- Letter: Our public lands
- Dan Liljenquist: What we learned from the...
- Arthur Cyr: US presidential politics reflects...
- My view: The solution to Utah's water problems
- In our opinion: Legislators need to better...
- 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
- John Hoffmire: Electric cars and the... 20
- Dan Liljenquist: What we learned from... 19