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: A slippery 'immoral' Tweet
- In our opinion: Par for the president
- Get the names right — or suffer...
- Letter: Our great nation?
- Charles Krauthammer: Solution to inversion is...
- 20 of the most influential and innovative...
- Americans are changing their tune on foreign...
- Letter: Attention diverted
- School fees: Is Utah really family... 49
- Mary Barker: Our economic discourse... 43
- In our opinion: A slippery 'immoral' Tweet 43
- Richard Davis: The State Board can do... 42
- Constitutional commitments trump tribal... 35
- Charles Krauthammer: Solution to... 33
- Letter: Society puzzles 32
- Join the discussion: Is Common Core... 31