Comments about ‘University of Utah forum discusses whether delegates represent Utah's voters’

The unhappiness of this bunch of political pundits with the present system is that the outcomes are not to their decidedly liberal liking.

Republicans who showed up at the caucuses are probably among the most attentive and best informed citizens of the state. The democrat caucus goers too.

The caucus system is far better than backroom deals by party bosses like is done in many states. Or, in states where primaries pit deep pocketed politicians against each other and the news media gets a chance to propagandize to sway the electorate.

I will take the caucuses, every time.

Those who don't like it should get involved in their neighborhood caucus and become a delegate and make their voice heard. The world is run by those who pay attention and show up. Those who do not pay attention should not even be allowed to vote.

Olene Walker.

One must remember something about this that sadly a very intelligent man like Mr Jowers overlooks. Olene made a pretty big announcement that she was not going to run for re-election. She was completing the term of Mike Leavitt and right off the bat said she was not going to run. When she did this many very competent people stepped into the void. Then VERY late in the campaign process she changed her mind. At this point people such as Speaker of the House Marty Stephens, Congressman Jim Hansen, and others had been campaigning for close to a year. What are they to do? Simply fold like a lawn chair because an indecisive person finally made up her mind?

There is no grand conspiracy. If you are Governor, and she was, you don't take a year to decide what you are going to do next. And if you do take a year don't expect all 2.4 million Utahns to sit on their hands.

Dr Jowers, very poor example to use. She blew it. Not the delegates.

One other note on how delegates are so out of touch with the primary or general election voters.

In 2004 Matt Throckmorton ran against Chris Cannon. He received roughly 42% at convention and 42% in the Primary. The convention and the primary were within less than one percentage point of each other.

In 2008 Jason Chaffetz ran against Chris Cannon. He received roughly 59% at convention, and about the same margin in the Primary.

In both very high profile cases the convention and the primary were also identical. In fact, the convention was a much more accurate prediction than even Dan Jones. Dan Jones had Chris Cannon beating Matt Throckmorton by over 24%! Not the eventual 8% swing.

Right now the big "R" Republican machine is doing everything they can to protect Orrin Hatch. He can see that Bob Bennett is about to lose. He wants to end the convention before he comes before re-election in two years.

This is not about good government or even fair representation. This is about the good old boys protecting their own.

The easiest way to have new people run without having to have $ Millions to do so is the current caucus system.

This year there were 2 to 3 times as many that came to the GOP Caucus nights and 75% to 80% of the state delegates were new.

The only reason to want to change it is that someone doesn't like the fact that they can not control the outcome with money or power as easily.

I hope Cherilyn Eagar wins at convention. If she does, it will be because she outworked Bob Bennett not outspent him.

The system as it currently is, allows the fringes of both parties to choose who will win in the primaries.

It would be better if we could craft a system which encourages more people to participate.

I agree totally with the first 3 comments. Both partys have too much power. People need to select canidates, not the political machine. While on the subject, we need a national primary day for President. So all of the people get to choose from all of the canidates, instead of having to vote for the leftovers. We had some pretty poor choices in Nov of 2008.

Talk about being out of touch. This writer, the Hinckley Institute, and those who don't like the caucus system--are all sour grapes. Liberal candidates are in trouble, so they pretend it's the system, and not the people.

I've got news for those folks. There were triple the attendees at the Utah caucus meetings this year, over any previous year. THAT is called grass roots mobilization, and there are a lot of angry people in this state (and this country), who are sick of having their elected representatives ignore their wishes. Bob Bennett has been completely asleep at the switch. He has ignored Utah for 6 years, fails to campaign in southern Utah, takes a ton of out of state money, hopes to "buy" votes with a big money spending spree.

No, do not change the system, it is working perfectly. And the last thing we need is some Univ of Utah professor telling us we're all wrong.

tq2 and other caucus supporters,

If you make the argument this is nothing but sour grapes, you need to make the converse argument that the only poeple who are protecting the current system are those who are enjoying their new-found power.

Again, as on other posts you can't see beyond today's election. You assume everyone thinks as parochially as you are. Address the issue at hand!

Fact is Universities are supposed to delve into academic inquiry, consider history, not just today's elections.

At the very least, improvements are needed to encourage more participation from more citizens and voters. Right?

To consider which system best represents the electorate is a perfectly legitimate exercise.

The bottom line for me is whatever motivates more people to become more involved in the political process is what we should do.

I commend caucus goers for coming out this year. My only question is, where have they been? Where were they when they weren't angry? I'm not rich and I'm not one of the political elite, but I have showed up for every election no matter how small for 34 years and the majority of my caucus meetings.

My experience is that the caucus attendees are not that well informed, are easily manipulated by red meat politics, and tend, as a group to oversimplify both the problems and the answers, can be intimidating to the quiet non-confrontational types and favor parochial, strident state legislators and that they foment partisanship. I would again argue that any system that does not give the potential for 100% participation should not be legitimized. The processes from caucus to caucus are not uniform - the vote counting is easily hijacked and not supervised and more closely resembles a banana republic system than a modern republic where one person - one vote should be sacred. And all this talk about how great the attendance was at caucus meetings is bunk when compared with the 1992 primary election for Senate, the last time a Senate seat was really contested - 275,000 people participated and the person who was behind at convention won the primary. I find it disturbing that people continue to advocate for a system of election that routinely casts a smaller net over a system that casts a wider net. This by people who humbly refer to themselves as being better informed.

I also find it amusing that the more educated a person is here in Utah the more we hold them up for derision. Apparently we are more interested in the opinions and ideas of people who are masters of sound-bite thinking than people who pose well thought out questions and who point out possible unfairness and who advocate for the possibility that the caucus system is not perfect and that perhaps we could improve it in some form or fashion. These caucus advocates love the consolidation of power in the caucus system rather than difusing power to a wider and wider group of citizens. It is the same human nature problem that they accuse incumbents of - the desire to hang on to power and they are using the current anger to further cement their power.

sounds like homers is a Bennett supporter!

The statement, "The less people show up, the more power you have," is crucical. When you consistently have low voter turnout, and when party bosses control caucuses, the party - not the electorate - select the candidates. And when it comes time to go to the polls voters who vote straight party are endorsing the choice of the party bosses. Uniformed voters, straight party voters, and non voters all contribute to the corruption of what could be a truly democratic process. The majority of Utah citizens need to stop complaining about their corrupt representatives and get involved in their parties, the caucuses, recruiting and supporting good candidates, and in get informed and vote for the candidate that best represents them.

homers,

Very well put. I've been trying to articulate many of your points, but you have said it very well.

It drives me absolutely crazy when people use inflammatory and ungrounded rhetoric. Perhaps innocently, but many people feed into the same system of demagoguery they say they oppose.

Political science should be the most noble of all the sciences because it encompasses all the others. It is what gives us the freedom to think and worship as we choose.

But instead, it often engenders cynicism and complacency followed by anger, rather than healthy skepticism.

To be skeptical assumes an obligation to ground one's assessments, and not to be swayed by every whim of political hot air that floats our way. It assumes a broader education in why people act the way they do in political situations.

The Constitution itself is a wonderful creation made possible by putting parochial interests aside to create something timeless for the human race. It required compromise and lengthy negotiation. It was written by men who put aside for a small moment in history the vexing issues of the day to consider human nature and the history of world societies, governments and politics.

I am a state delegate. Last night I researched Bennett's voting record for over two hours. I have have been unhappy with what he is doing for years. I am highly informed already, but after researching last night I found even many more reasons to vote him out. I have attended numerous candidate presentations, researched their websites and histories. I have talked to them face to face. I have attended two debates. I was elected fairly by my neighborhood caucus members--people who care about their community and bother to show up. Everyone knew these meetings were going on. There were signs all over our neighborhood. It was announced from the pulpit of our church! Members were strongly encouraged to attend. Church meetings were canceled or postponed in my ward. People were allowed to change their party affiliation to Republican right at the caucuses so that they could vote! I believe the caucus system is perfect grassroots representative government and puts all candidates on equal footing. A candidate with less money can compete with a fat cat incumbent! Incumbents cannot have the advantage. It's what representative democracy is all about!

If Joe Public don't like the way delegates represent, it is Mr. Public's fault. Get involved, stop being LAZY, start caring about politics because it does actually matter.

I don't like the 2 parties in power right now, but as a former delegate I can tell you that most other delegates I met were like me...they felt the system was robbing them and their kids of a better future and they wanted to fix it.

Honestly, even getting involved at the caucus stage is a bit late. The machinations happening behind the scenes BEFORE the caucuses even begin often predetermine who will be in office. Politics is messy and uncomfortable, but until the AVERAGE VOTER gets WAY more involved all through the process not much will change and you forfeit the right to complain.

California girl | 8:59 a.m. April 28, 2010
I am a state delegate. Last night I researched Bennett's voting record for over two hours. I have have been unhappy with what he is doing for years. I am highly informed already, but after researching last night I found even many more reasons to vote him out.

----------

Would you please list them so that we too can be as informed as you are. Thanks.

First, EVERYONE can already participate in caucuses. What is more democratic that that? What do you propose as an alternative- forcing everyone to participate? That doesn't sound very democratic to me.

Second, the caucus system has historically favored the incumbents who benefit from name recognition, media exposure, and familiarity with regular caucus attendees and reelected delegates. Bennett has clearly benefited from these and general apathy in the past. It's only when an incumbent is in trouble that people start questioning the legitimacy of the caucus system- unbelievable!

At our caucus, people were informed about Bennett and some of his votes with which they disagreed. There were some there who had never been before and has been our practice at our caucus, we encourage and vote for them for the county conventions. We were aware of the fight there would be for the senate race and so we elected delegates who had been there before and committed to staying the whole time. We also wanted someone there who knows Robert's Rules and would be able to understand exactly what they were voting on. I do believe there is a lot of anti-incumbent sentiment out there, but most delegates are not going in blindly for that reason.

I want Bennett out because of the Healthy Americans Act, voting for TARP where there was no accountability on how and where the funds were spent, his unfulfilled promise to retire after 2 terms, his votes for Supreme Court nominees, Czars, and Surgeon General, etc. We are not all the uninformed caucus attendees Bob Bennett wants to portray.

Everyone has the choice whether or not to participate in the caucus'. The delegates absolutely represent the public so far as the public that desires to participate in the process.

The delegates that were selected in my precinct accurately represented the group in attendance (which was about 70 people from my neighborhood).

There is an old saying that if you want the right to complain about the process, then first exercise your right to participate in the process. If you CHOOSE not to participate, then you water down your argument that you are not represented.

Our current caucus system is far superior to the primary system in that it allows individuals to run for office that would have had no chance of winning without caucus' and conventions. If we only had a general primary, only incumbents and the very wealthy could ever be elected. I would argue that this would create a far less representative system where the elected officials would not align to the general public.

The system is not broken. The apathy of the people is really the root of the problems within our system. Get out - participate - get involved - this is where true change comes from.

Let's air the truth about Mr. Jowers here: He's really upset about the delegate system because, as he examined running for governor in 2010, he realized that since he's only sat in his ivory tower and tried to become "the most quoted man in Utah" (a phrase he uses in his bio, but which was actually 'maybe the most quoted man in Utah), he had not developed the political backing necessary to work in the delegate system.

In a primary, Jowers could bring in his national scene buddies and impress primary voters. See, Jowers connections are to his national law firm's clients. Jowers wrote the McCain Feingold legislation, so his firm serves these candidates by helping them comply with the insanely difficult national campaign finance laws. But the problem with bringing in those national folks is, delegates aren't that impressed by it.

So what's Jowers doing? Tilting the playing field for himself: Get rid of the delegate system, cap donations to Utah campaigns, and hope a whole bunch of rich, well-heeled, famous people can impress Utah voters enought o get him elected.

Ain't working, Kirk. You'll always be small potatoes.