Reader comments
Primary election postmortem
23 comments | Read story
Anonymous | 12:21 a.m. June 26, 2008
---- And yes, some of you may be confused � or troubled
� by the closed primary election process used by
Utah's Republican Party. ----
If you're still confused by the closed primary system, then I don't care if you got to vote or not.. Our system requires us to allow idiots to vote. It doesn't require us to make voting idiotproof, however.
---- Six-term 3rd District Rep. Chris Cannon was ousted by challenger Jason Chaffetz in Tuesday's election, a loss Cannon attributed to low voter turnout... ----
OK, let's do the math again, just for the slow folks here:
58,000 people voted in the 2006 3rd District primary. 44,000 people voted on Tuesday. Chaffetz won by 9,000 votes. If 14,000 more people showed up at the polls, raisin it to 2006 levels, 82% of them would've had to vote for Cannon to have won. That...would...not...happen.
Polls before the election showed Cannon at 44%, Cahefftz at 40%, and undecided at 16%. If every single Republican in the 3rd District had voted Cahffetz would have won, because the undecideds almost certainly would've gone for him.
If you're still confused by the closed primary system, then I don't care if you got to vote or not.. Our system requires us to allow idiots to vote. It doesn't require us to make voting idiotproof, however.
---- Six-term 3rd District Rep. Chris Cannon was ousted by challenger Jason Chaffetz in Tuesday's election, a loss Cannon attributed to low voter turnout... ----
OK, let's do the math again, just for the slow folks here:
58,000 people voted in the 2006 3rd District primary. 44,000 people voted on Tuesday. Chaffetz won by 9,000 votes. If 14,000 more people showed up at the polls, raisin it to 2006 levels, 82% of them would've had to vote for Cannon to have won. That...would...not...happen.
Polls before the election showed Cannon at 44%, Cahefftz at 40%, and undecided at 16%. If every single Republican in the 3rd District had voted Cahffetz would have won, because the undecideds almost certainly would've gone for him.
Curious | 1:28 a.m. June 26, 2008
I'm not sure what the 10% figure represents. Is that the percentage of
total registered voters in the state, or the percentage of registered
Republicans who voted?
Most of the people I know don't want to be affiliated with a specific party, and don't feel like doing so just for the sake of receiving permission to participate in closed primaries.
I would guess that allowing anyone to vote in the primary without having to choose a party, would increase participation dramatically.
It might also make sense to move the primary back to the fall, when less people are prone to be out of town or doing other summer activities. I know it is nice to have the primary over earlier in order to prepare for a general election, but it appears that the voting percentages are less since the change.
Most of the people I know don't want to be affiliated with a specific party, and don't feel like doing so just for the sake of receiving permission to participate in closed primaries.
I would guess that allowing anyone to vote in the primary without having to choose a party, would increase participation dramatically.
It might also make sense to move the primary back to the fall, when less people are prone to be out of town or doing other summer activities. I know it is nice to have the primary over earlier in order to prepare for a general election, but it appears that the voting percentages are less since the change.
Comments continue below
UTAH Bill | 4:40 a.m. June 26, 2008
It's no coincidence that Republican races are down in numbers. When
Conservatives don't like the choices they're given, they simply choose
not to vote. Meanwhile, the Democratic voters are turning out in record
numbers. If this trend continues (and it looks like it will), Democrats will
win big this fall.
Anonymous | 6:43 a.m. June 26, 2008
Or maybe we don't want to identify as Republicans.
Lionheart | 8:01 a.m. June 26, 2008
I see nothing wrong with the party faithful, who know the candidates and the
platforms chosing the candidate to represent them. If they choose wrong, they
lose the election.
jdegaston | 8:08 a.m. June 26, 2008
What is this noise about everyone else wanting to vote in the Republican
primary? Why do not the other parties have primary elections also? If you
don't want to be a Republican, why do you want or expect to be able to
choose their candidates?
And why do not the Republicans have any more races on the ballot? Well, in Utah County we have a strange set of rules and practices by the insider families who like to control everything -- automatic delegates (ex-officio), appointed replacement delegates, discretionary delegates and "ballot box antics" by Bramble and Company. Added up they save incumbents and eliminate primary contests. They barely saved Cannon in the Convention by delaying the voting until many delegates left, but they could not control the voting public in the election.
Turn-out would have been higher if there were Democrats on the ballot, Constitution party races, or even Republican primary races for the Utah House and Senate seats. But Monnahan blocked the seating of two of Houskeeper's delegates (and she lost by one vote), and Grover avoided a primary by just one vote, and we will never know for sure re Bramble. So, few contests, fewer voters. Figures!
And why do not the Republicans have any more races on the ballot? Well, in Utah County we have a strange set of rules and practices by the insider families who like to control everything -- automatic delegates (ex-officio), appointed replacement delegates, discretionary delegates and "ballot box antics" by Bramble and Company. Added up they save incumbents and eliminate primary contests. They barely saved Cannon in the Convention by delaying the voting until many delegates left, but they could not control the voting public in the election.
Turn-out would have been higher if there were Democrats on the ballot, Constitution party races, or even Republican primary races for the Utah House and Senate seats. But Monnahan blocked the seating of two of Houskeeper's delegates (and she lost by one vote), and Grover avoided a primary by just one vote, and we will never know for sure re Bramble. So, few contests, fewer voters. Figures!
John C | 8:19 a.m. June 26, 2008
Voter turn out has been on the wain for years.
People have quit wasting their time to vote the two party system, it keeps independent and third parties at bay because of their power to control the election rules and the money. Notice the primaries were held when schools out, summer vacations are in full swing,etc. People are forgetful and lazy.... not idiots for not voting.
Then the parties select insiders and party loyalist to run, seems the system is in melt down.
The presidental race says it all...look at the choices two liberal Senators, best the two party system has to offer...UGH!
People have quit wasting their time to vote the two party system, it keeps independent and third parties at bay because of their power to control the election rules and the money. Notice the primaries were held when schools out, summer vacations are in full swing,etc. People are forgetful and lazy.... not idiots for not voting.
Then the parties select insiders and party loyalist to run, seems the system is in melt down.
The presidental race says it all...look at the choices two liberal Senators, best the two party system has to offer...UGH!
Russ | 9:11 a.m. June 26, 2008
One of the reasons I think the turn out was so poor is most of us are so
disenfranchised with them that they think, "why bother?"
And it's people like Chris Cannon who caused that, so when he alienates his base from the polls a grass roots conservative movement is going to slap him in the face.
Chris, you brought this on yourself. If you'd trully represented your base, you'd still be in office, there probably wouldn't have been a primary.
I for one joined the party a few years ago just to get him out of there. It all started when he became Bush's poster boy for amnesty.
And it's people like Chris Cannon who caused that, so when he alienates his base from the polls a grass roots conservative movement is going to slap him in the face.
Chris, you brought this on yourself. If you'd trully represented your base, you'd still be in office, there probably wouldn't have been a primary.
I for one joined the party a few years ago just to get him out of there. It all started when he became Bush's poster boy for amnesty.
waynedew | 9:26 a.m. June 26, 2008
Gee, the brother of the Deseret News publisher loses (big!) a
primary--attributes it to low voter turnout--and then the newspaper runs an
editorial admonishing Utah voters.
Nice.
Nice.
Gordon B. | 9:43 a.m. June 26, 2008
The Deseret News editorial board says shame on us for not participating in
rigged elections to "select our leaders"? The nerve!
Scholars know that voter turnout has very little to do with the outcome of an election. Chaffetz would have won whether the turnout was 20 percent or 80 percent. People vote or don't vote for similar reasons.
So if voter turnout doesn't affect the outcome, why are people like those on the Deseret News editorial board complaining about low voter turnout.
My guess is that, as members of the incumbent political class, the DNews editorial board rightly sees high voter turnout as a measure of public support for the status quo and rigged rules.
And to the extent that the public casts a "null vote" by not registering to vote or staying away from the polls, this shows dissatisfaction with the status quo and rigged rules. And this lack of confidence in the incumbent political class threatens the influence of the DNews editorial board and their co-conspirators to maintain their power and privilege.
But perhaps the Deseret News editorial board could address this point directly.
Check out a group called the "League of Non-Voters" for more information.
Scholars know that voter turnout has very little to do with the outcome of an election. Chaffetz would have won whether the turnout was 20 percent or 80 percent. People vote or don't vote for similar reasons.
So if voter turnout doesn't affect the outcome, why are people like those on the Deseret News editorial board complaining about low voter turnout.
My guess is that, as members of the incumbent political class, the DNews editorial board rightly sees high voter turnout as a measure of public support for the status quo and rigged rules.
And to the extent that the public casts a "null vote" by not registering to vote or staying away from the polls, this shows dissatisfaction with the status quo and rigged rules. And this lack of confidence in the incumbent political class threatens the influence of the DNews editorial board and their co-conspirators to maintain their power and privilege.
But perhaps the Deseret News editorial board could address this point directly.
Check out a group called the "League of Non-Voters" for more information.
Utah Indepenent Voter | 9:52 a.m. June 26, 2008
One comment to this insane closed Utah GOP primary:
The GOP faithful have their chance during their convention to select candidates. If they can't get to one candidate in convention, (i.e. no one gets 60%) they go to a primary which in my mind should be public and open to all voters. The GOP had their chance at convention to avoid a primary. By allowing a primary, all voters should be allowed to vote. If you are that concerned about a democratic "infiltrator" ruining your chance, take care of your candidates at convention and give the best one 60+% of your vote.
As such, I chose not to vote in the Primary because I do not want to pledge allegiance to the Grand Old Party in order to cast a vote. I should be able to cast a vote because I am an American and an Utahn.
So Go Utah Democrats while the Utah GOP (and national GOP) are lost figuring out who they are. Conservative they are not (note Real Salt Lake as one example where the Ds said a resounding NO)
The GOP faithful have their chance during their convention to select candidates. If they can't get to one candidate in convention, (i.e. no one gets 60%) they go to a primary which in my mind should be public and open to all voters. The GOP had their chance at convention to avoid a primary. By allowing a primary, all voters should be allowed to vote. If you are that concerned about a democratic "infiltrator" ruining your chance, take care of your candidates at convention and give the best one 60+% of your vote.
As such, I chose not to vote in the Primary because I do not want to pledge allegiance to the Grand Old Party in order to cast a vote. I should be able to cast a vote because I am an American and an Utahn.
So Go Utah Democrats while the Utah GOP (and national GOP) are lost figuring out who they are. Conservative they are not (note Real Salt Lake as one example where the Ds said a resounding NO)
Another Solution | 10:08 a.m. June 26, 2008
To all who believe we should allow non-Republicans to vote in the Republican
primary, how about THIS solution:
Give each voter a separate ballot for EACH party . . . even third parties. Let us all vote in ALL of them. Democrats can then vote for the Republican they want to run against their candidate and vice versa.
In the 3rd District, this would merely result in Jason Chaffetz winning the primary in BOTH parties! I, for one, would really like that outcome.
Give each voter a separate ballot for EACH party . . . even third parties. Let us all vote in ALL of them. Democrats can then vote for the Republican they want to run against their candidate and vice versa.
In the 3rd District, this would merely result in Jason Chaffetz winning the primary in BOTH parties! I, for one, would really like that outcome.
Anonymous | 10:28 a.m. June 26, 2008
I worked the election in Utah County. We had three precincts and a possibility
of 2756 voters, we had 99. Granted there were about 50 registered Democrats.
The most interesting thing was that in my precinct of the 5 elected delegates to the State and County Republican conventions only ONE showed up to vote. These are people who said that they would work to represent the precinct and the Republican party, but they didn't vote in a Republican primary, yet they are registered Republicans. Guess what, I will be asking all those who wish to be delegates if they voted in all the elections.
If you don't vote you have no right to complain about who is elected and how good or bad they represent you.
The most interesting thing was that in my precinct of the 5 elected delegates to the State and County Republican conventions only ONE showed up to vote. These are people who said that they would work to represent the precinct and the Republican party, but they didn't vote in a Republican primary, yet they are registered Republicans. Guess what, I will be asking all those who wish to be delegates if they voted in all the elections.
If you don't vote you have no right to complain about who is elected and how good or bad they represent you.
Stop your nonsense | 10:32 a.m. June 26, 2008
those of you complaining that democrats would ruin everything if they were
allowed to vote in the republican primary, that is nonsense. Registered
republicans FAR outnumber registered democrats in this state. If you allowed
democrats to influence the election, that just means you aren't getting
enough of your own party out to vote.
Besides, I am NOT a Republican. I am registered as a republican so I could be a county and state delegate and to vote in the primary, but I AM NOT a republican. So we already have our impact.
Besides, I am NOT a Republican. I am registered as a republican so I could be a county and state delegate and to vote in the primary, but I AM NOT a republican. So we already have our impact.
RE: Anonymous | 10:44 a.m. June 26, 2008
About low voting in yur precinct, don't forget early and absentee voting.
I voted a week early, so didn't get to wear a sticker on election day or
show up at my local polling place- I went to the County building to vote early.
My guess is that your delegates were more likely to vote early given their level
of involvement.
Kevin | 10:48 a.m. June 26, 2008
I sent out an e-mail to my friends encouraging them to vote. Then you know
what? I totally forgot until it was too late. I feel like a putz.
Holly | 11:22 a.m. June 26, 2008
I am a state delegate and I also voted early so that I could campaign for
Chaffetz on Tuesday, which I did. :) Good point, anon. Another state delegate
in my precinct was pounding on the door at 6:55 am to be able to get in and
vote. I also agree it's a totally valid question to ask anyone who wants
to run again as a delegate - did you go to convention, did you STAY for the
entire convention and did you vote in the primaries and general election? If
not, why not?
But that's still not why Cannon lost . . . .
But that's still not why Cannon lost . . . .
Stewart | 11:30 a.m. June 26, 2008
The only difference an open primary would have been is that Chaffetz would have
won by an even larger percentage. The unaffiliated would have never voted for
Cannon, and any democrats wanting to cause trouble by voting would have also
voted for Chaffetz in hopes of getting a non-incumbent in November, also causing
unintentional problems for the democrats, since more republicans would have
voted since they wouldn't have to vote for Cannon.
These voters were also a much larger sample of what the people thought than any of the polls taken by the professional poll takers who were way off the mark.
These voters were also a much larger sample of what the people thought than any of the polls taken by the professional poll takers who were way off the mark.
Oh PLease | 2:50 p.m. June 26, 2008
If the Republicans want to hold a closed primary, why DO I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT
WITH MY TAXES? Why don't they hold their own private party and pay for it
themselves?
Thanks Republicans | 3:37 p.m. June 26, 2008
I registered Republican so I could vote AGAINST Cannon and Walker. What a
joke to run a candidate for state treasurer who couldn't conduct a bake
sale and make $10. I'll be changing back to unaffiliated next week.
Wilkey | 9:36 p.m. June 26, 2008
*** "If the Republicans want to hold a closed primary, why DO I HAVE TO PAY
FOR IT WITH MY TAXES?" ***
The state will pay for any primaries held by any parties. You don't have to be a Republican. Why keep blaming the GOP for the fact that, for as bad as they can be, they're the only party that comes close to representing what the majority of the state wants?
*** "Why don't they hold their own private party and pay for it themselves?" ***
Well then who is going to pay for it - the GOP? How? The best I can figure is that they'd have to charge a poll tax. This actually doesn't sound like too bad an idea - prove your loyalty to your party by being willing to help them raise money for the primary - but it wouldn't go over very well.
The state will pay for any primaries held by any parties. You don't have to be a Republican. Why keep blaming the GOP for the fact that, for as bad as they can be, they're the only party that comes close to representing what the majority of the state wants?
*** "Why don't they hold their own private party and pay for it themselves?" ***
Well then who is going to pay for it - the GOP? How? The best I can figure is that they'd have to charge a poll tax. This actually doesn't sound like too bad an idea - prove your loyalty to your party by being willing to help them raise money for the primary - but it wouldn't go over very well.
RE:re:Anonymous | 5:00 p.m. June 27, 2008
We had ONE person early vote, she was one of the other Poll Workers and no
absentee ballots cast or requested, they mark those in the book so that they
don't vote twice. We went through the book page by page to help battle
boredom.
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.
- O'Connor's husband dies 10:36 a.m.
- Russia launches program for tigers 10:35 a.m.
- Veterans Day in Afghanistan 10:34 a.m.
- Drug industry presses FDA 10:31 a.m.
- Obama honors veterans 10:29 a.m.
- New dinosaur species found 10:21 a.m.
- Utah canyon up for designation 10:17 a.m.
- Police probe synagogue vandalism 9:28 a.m.
- BYU football recruit turning heads 9:04 a.m.
- Audit: S.L. County 911 'inefficient' 9:02 a.m.
- SLC council OKs gay rights policies
- Pratt pleads not guilty to sex charges
- Utah group finds homes for orphans
- Utah Jazz have a problem at point
- Wyoming writer amazed by BYU
- Hair-pulling raises more questions
- 'Love story' of crash victim ends
- Y. tight ends talented tandem
- 4 Jazz players make All-Star ballot
- 12 Utes return to Texas
- House passes health care bill
268 - TCU showdown has big implications188
- Lobo suspended185
- Senators want food tax restored155
- Cougars crush hapless Cowboys155
- Utah Jazz fall apart against Kings131
- TCU 4th in AP poll; U. 16th, Y. 22nd119
- No 'backlash' for pioneers, gays analogy106
- S.L. vote pending on gay protections105
- Utes pound winless Lobos89
Maybe someone out there can help me understand how raising the state...
Advertisement
Latest comments
i'm not sure I get the problem... this legislation covers sexual...
In this day of easy access to information on addiction it is inconceivable...
is right. Gloria is probably just another liberal who goes around to any...
If anyone ever wanted to put a montage together, of Dick Bavetta coddling...
I have a friend who lives in AF who's friend's daughter was on the bus that...
I'm not LDS, but I applaud the LDS Church for taking this stand on civil...
I have been getting gypted! In Little Leauge?!?
Here comes the complaining and excuses already. WOW! Most teams uses these...
@ Ab @ 4:14 I should be deported? I was born in the U.S.A., so good luck...
Advertisements
How much coverage, exactly, did this newspaper give to the various candidates running for the school boards? Not even a one-time special section covering the candidates and their issues? I didn't see it.
Ahem #2: *** "Between that shift and closed primaries, too few Utahns are participating in elections to select their leaders." ***
Perhaps another reason is the dwindling number of races on the ballot. In mine and many precincts there was only one: the state treasurer race.
Why are the number of races dwindling? Talk to Editor Joe: it was his idea as Republican Party Chair to lower the threshold needed to avoid a primary runoff. It used to be 70%. Now it's 60%. Before blaming summer primaries and all, why not look at how many primary races there are now as compared to then.
As for open primaries - WHY? Democrats almost NEVER have primaries in this state, so an open primary is an open invitation for them to meddle in the GOP. They don't get to choose both nominees.