Deseret News | Reader comments: Utah's lieutenant governor is pushing regional-primary plan

Reader comments
Utah's lieutenant governor is pushing regional-primary plan

Herbert is wrong | 2:36 a.m. March 13, 2008

The article quotes Herbert as saying "This is not only good for Utah but good for the country," and "it is fair for the candidates, fair for the electorate or the voters, and fair for those that have to run the elections."

A Regional Primary is bad for several reasons. The first of which is that smaller campaigns would have a higher threshold to meet in the earliest regional primary to remain competitive. This would force the smaller campaigns to spend the majority of their funds on states that they may not win in order to remain competitive even though they may win in the states that are part of regions that occur later in the season and if they lose the first and/or second region the third and fourth are more likely to change their minds.

An example is that Barack Obama would never have had a chance had a CERTAIN region went first even though its quite obvious that he will become the Democratic nominee. There's always been a domino affect in primaries where candidates who win gain more support as the campaign continues. Under the proposed system this would give to much weight to one region.

Notafan | 6:27 a.m. March 13, 2008

This, coming from the Lt Gov who makes automated phone calls endorsing candidates the night before an election.

taxpayer | 6:52 a.m. March 13, 2008

one question what will this cost the taxpayer of Utah?

Comments continue below

current system? | 8:05 a.m. March 13, 2008

HIW: So you think the current system doesn't give an unfair advantage to Iowa, NH, and South Carolina? And 'smaller candidates' are at a huge disadvantage under the current system the regional primary would not make that worse.

What about U.S. commitment to Ethenol? Does that have anything to do with the fact that Iowa goes first every year? Why can't Utah issues be as important to Presidential candidates as Iowa issues? I'll bet if Utah went first oil shale,coal, and other natural resources in Utah would get more attention and $$$.

If Obama can't compete in an entire region (1/4) of the US, then maybe he shouldn't be President.

Go4it | 8:30 a.m. March 13, 2008

I think this is a very good idea. I get sick of seeing a tenth of our population decide who gets nominated for primary elections when they select the "front runner". I don't vote like I'm from Iowa, South Carolina, or Michigan. I don't care about the same issues.

I hated seeing Nevada and South Carolina have their Rupublican primaries on the same day. Romney ran against no-one in NV and it was a two man race in SC. Candidates are ignoring states many times because it's too much travel in such a short period of time.

This regional proposal will give even minor states more attention like they've had this year in the Dem's race (to the excitement of everyone who believes in real national elections).

As for low budget campaigns, Mike Huckabee was clearly not going to win the GOP, but he still raked in the votes in the South (momentum didn't slow him down where his base was). He'd spend less than Romney, and get the votes all the same.

UWMad | 9:22 a.m. March 13, 2008

I think that this is a great idea too. HIW, the order of states electing already puts candidates at a disadvantage. Rudy Guiliani, for example, knew that he couldn't win the electorates in Iowa and New Hampshire, so he focused on Florda. Low and behold, the fact that he faired so poorly in those first two states knocked him out for the rest of the primary. Had a state like Florida been first (before all of those voters were influenced by earlier state primaries)he might have gotten better results. With a regional election/lottery the rest of the country wouldn't be forced to always accept whoever Iowa and New Hampshire choose, it might make for a more diverse pool of candidates, more innovation, and a more exciting election year.

Couldn't Agree More | 9:57 a.m. March 13, 2008

This makes total sense to me. The system right now is a total mess. Politics is already too much of a game and too little about who the best candidate really is. This gives every state a chance to make their voice heard and puts everyone on an equal playing field and forces the candidates to impress everyone-not just "gain momentum" in key states. Good to see our Lt. Gov making a significant difference. Way to represent Gary!

Almost but not quite | 12:37 p.m. March 13, 2008

This concept is great--except for granting permanent "more equal than others" status to Iowa and New Hampshire. Their leaders were very smart to start a tradition of going first and thereby gaining lots of political power (& ethanol subsidies). The rest of us would be dumb to let them keep this unbalanced influence.

If there need to be some trial run primaries before the regionals, they should also be on a rotating basis.

Goose | 3:40 p.m. March 13, 2008

What a waste of air. Hot air at that. The RNC and the DNC make the rules, not the states or the Federal Government. The RNC and DNC are big country clubs and are not going to change until the electorial college is abolished

My enemies want to destroy right | 3:50 p.m. March 13, 2008

current system, "HIW: So you think the current system doesn't give an unfair advantage to Iowa, NH, and South Carolina? And 'smaller candidates' are at a huge disadvantage under the current system the regional primary would not make that worse."

No the current system doesn't give an unfair advantage to Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina. Nor are smaller candidates at a disadvantage under the current system because they can do well in Iowa simply by getting out and meeting the people and could spend almost nothing and still walk away having done well which would give them momentum into New Hampshire which is a primary state. A regional primary forces candidates to campaign in the big states first.

You write, "If Obama can't compete in an entire region (1/4) of the US, then maybe he shouldn't be President." Obama actually won the 4 reasons but Clinton did equally well in the East and had they gone first she would have had the argument that he wasn't competitive even enough he won it. The problem with a regional primary is that it harms people and we can't let you people harm people like me. So bring it on Herbert, Jr.

Get real | 4:06 p.m. March 13, 2008

UWMad, "I think that this is a great idea too. HIW, the order of states electing already puts candidates at a disadvantage." This is what I like to call a lie and those making the claim as liars. How many times must you retards be told that the current system allows candidates to get their feet wet without having to jump in head first.

You write, "With a regional election/lottery the rest of the country wouldn't be forced to always accept whoever Iowa and New Hampshire choose, it might make for a more diverse pool of candidates, more innovation, and a more exciting election year."

The rest of the country is never forced to accept whoever Iowa or New Hampshire chooses and only a retard would make that argument. There's no evidence that Guiliani would have won Florida since he only got 15% of the vote there even though he focused on it. States are going to vote for whom they are going to vote for regardless of who goes first otherwise every state would have voted the same as Iowa and New Hampshire and they haven't so please stop proving that you and this guy Gary are retards.

llop | 4:36 p.m. March 13, 2008

What does he say? The jobs are never coming back, the illegals are never going home, but we're gonna have a lot more wars," Buchanan said of McCain. Scarborough remarked that McCain's "inviting" presidential platform for the fall consists of "less jobs and more wars":

BUCHANAN: Here's a guy, basically, what does he say? The jobs are never coming back, the illegals are never going home, but we're gonna have a lot more wars.

SCARBOROUGH: We're gonna start a lot of wars! He has promised, for the record Keith, John McCain's platform -- and it certainly looks inviting for the fall -- he has promised less jobs and more wars. Now that's something we can all rally behind

Anonymous | 5:59 p.m. March 13, 2008

Lets do one better. Given that the elections are really about us as the citizens of this country and not the democratic or republican parties we need to have a one day national election just like we do for the final election. Everybodies vote should count the same and be made on the same day. Shorten the campaing to 2-3 months before the one day national primary and get rid of the super delegates - one man (one woman) one vote. Tell me how to campaign for this new, improved better process.

Anonymous is a tyrant | 9:19 p.m. March 13, 2008

Anonymous, "Everybodies vote should count the same and be made on the same day. Shorten the campaing to 2-3 months before the one day national primary and get rid of the super delegates - one man (one woman) one vote. Tell me how to campaign for this new, improved better process."

Elections would cost billions instead of millions if we went with what you want. You may think that your proposal is "new" and "improved" but it isn't and it's the very opposite of what federalism and democracy are about. To have everyone vote on the same day and only allow 2 to 3 months to campaign would result in only the very wealthy or already popular candidates being given an unfair advantage. There is no way that the Paul's, Kucinich's and many others wouldn't even have the opportunity to get their feet wet campaignining in a caucus state before being forced to campaign in 50 states in a matter of two months.

They would be forced to rely on the national news, debates and technology to get their message out to voters and many such as myself would end up being disenfranchised and I will fight for my rights.

Re: MEWTDM | 8:52 a.m. March 14, 2008

So you think its fair that every four years Presidential candidates pump millions and millions of dollars into Iowa's economy, its pets issues get addressed, and they get the largest say in choosing the leader of our country?...Are you from Iowa or NH?

You proved yourself wrong on your Obama problem. Even according to you he would have won if the NE had gone first.

"States are going to vote for whom they are going to vote for regardless of who goes first, otherwise every state would have voted the same as Iowa and New Hampshire."

Actually in the Democratic Party everyone has voted the same as Iowa and NH. And the Republican Party voted only one other winner (Mitt Romney), but even his candidacy was ruined by losing those first two states. And they say this has been the election where those first to states mattered the least.

I'm surprised someone from Iowa would take interest in a Utah newspaper. Did the Iowa Registrar give you your talking points?

the Political Parties | 1:26 p.m. March 15, 2008

should go back to "smoke filled rooms" to pick their candidates. the professionals picked better candidates. currently we spend 2 years and million$ and discuss no issues but lots of polls and personalities.

I want votes to count. | 12:06 a.m. March 18, 2008

Why even have the electoral college? IT just gives an unfair advantage/disadvantage to everyone. When it was first created communication to anywhere took months, so our founding fathers devised a plan that would help fix this issue, however, this is the 21 century people!!! We have the technology to have instant communication, why not put that to good use? Have machines that tally up every single vote, our vote, not some random elected representative. Have everyone's vote count instead. So instead of bickering and complaining about how your vote doesn't count or you don't want this regional plan, (even though it is a good plan) get of your seats and petition for no electoral congress, otherwise no matter what Utah and other small states will not get a say in things.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.