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.
- Doug Robinson: Violence against women is...
- In our opinion: The Affordable Care Act needs...
- Can a news channel 'solve problems'?
- My view: A global warming solution to grow...
- The relationship between religiosity and...
- My view: Balancing personal conviction and...
- Join the discussion: Is feminism misunderstood?
- Lawrence and Windsor won't trump Utah...
- Lawrence and Windsor won't trump Utah... 114
- In our opinion: The Affordable Care Act... 64
- Stuart Reid: Translations of religious... 63
- My view: Balancing personal conviction... 53
- In our opinion: The long-term outlook... 51
- Letter: Policy disagreement 45
- In our opinion: Use market forces and... 35
- My view: A global warming solution to... 35