Comments about ‘Poll finds Utahns don't want candidates eliminated at convention’

I would love for Utah to have a direct primary. More power to the people, less to the political parties. The current system discourages participation and gives the party elite a disproportionate influence over which candidates advance to the general election. This silly argument about Utah being a "well-run state" (whatever that means) doesn't mean the current system serves all Utahns equally well.

The Utah process helps filter out the bad candidates by informed delegates, rather than relying on the ignorance of the general public, influenced by advertising and corrupt money, which gave us the likes of Obama.

If you like a system that favors incumbents - If you don't mind the fact that the only candidates you would see are the very wealthy - than the general primary system is the system for you.

In my opinion, this leads us to a system where it is difficult to vote out bad incumbents and the average person would never get a chance to be elected.

Our current system with a caucus is the only option I am aware of that an average citizen would ever have a chance to be elected. It is far less costly to run a campaign through the caucus system - making it a possibility for average citizens to run. To run in a general primary is very costly where most citizens would get their information through expensive 20 second radio and TV adds. The average citizen could never even consider running without the caucus system.

Be careful what you ask for. You might just find youself regretting your actions. Instead of complaining about our current system, more people should get involved in it. I would be willing to bet that most in favor of changing to a general primary have not participated in a caucus.

The extremism -- or polarization -- exhibited by elected Democrats and Republicans in Utah is more a product of the two-party system than the caucus system.

It's easy to understand why the establishment media prefers a primary system that it can more easily manipulate with its mass communication tools.

Replace the two-party system with the more competitive and representative ranked-choice voting and proportional representation election systems.

FairVote: The Center for Voting and Democracy has educational videos and other materials explaining how these more inclusive electoral processes have been working other countries Americans trade and visit with for some time.

First, if Utahns want to have a say in which candidate comes out of the convention, THEN GO TO YOUR CAUCUS MEETINGS AND VOTE THERE FOR YOUR DELEGATES! Utahns DO have a say in candidates that emerge from caucuses. I was encouraged recently as I attended my caucus/precinct meeting to find that attendance had tripled over 2 years ago. But of the hundreds of voters in my caucus, we had about 70 attending our precinct.

Next, I think our current system works well. I feel that a majority of Utahns don't really study the issues and the candidates. Those who do study them are more likely to go to their caucus meetings, and more likely to be nominated as a delegate. So our conventions become a "buffer" against the majority of voters who are less informed.

That said, the risk to the current system is that a certain candidate, or interest group, can stack the caucus meetings with like-minded people to get "their guy", or "their gal" past the convention. The best protection against that is ATTEND YOUR CAUCUS MEETINGS. EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE!

The same people who never show up to the caucuses are the same ones who don't want a caucus. I don't want primaries. If you are not interested enough to show up to a caucus because it is too long and boring then you are initially saying you are an uninformed American who wants to vote without doing your homework. The reason why we have the problems that we today is because uniformed Americans are voting. The founding fathers never intended that all Americans vote. Read the constitution and see who were candidates for voting. If voting were the way that the founding fathers wanted then we would not have any of the elected officials in office that we have today. Whether they be democrat or republican and our country wouldn't be in the mess it is in. get rid of the primaries and let the delegates decide who the public votes for in the general election.

The decision was made by the Legislature several years ago to move Utah's caucus so early in the election cycle so that Utah's "voice" could be heard early in the political season. That reasoning has succeeded, putting Utah front and center in national politics.

thank you "supremelaw" you get it and obviously informed about how a republic is properly run. We don't want "mob rule" and caucuses prevent this

The current system works well. This article points out that many people want to have a direct primary...that the people can vote directly for the candidates.

Well, they can. They must attend their caucus and precinct meetings. There they can vote on delegates that will represent them.

My concern with a direct primary is that candidates can package themselves more easily. I feel that a large proportion of the populace is not well informed. They do not take time to study the issues and the candidates. They can tell you the lines from Leno the previous night, but can't tell you what each candidate stands for and what his or her voting record has been.

Those that attend their precinct meetings tend to be those that take time to be informed.

So get informed and attend precinct meetings.

Incumbents greatly benefit from a direct primary. A perfect example is Bob Bennett. In a direct primary or a general election he would easily win. That is because of name recognition, and voters who are not well informed.

But among delegates, those that understand better his voting record...

First- you intimated that Bennett is a 'popular' Senator which is certainly NOT true.

There are some definite advantages to our current nominating system. By having a caucus/convention system, new contenders have a CHANCE to win the nomination from incumbents. Without a caucus system, we'd never have gotten a Jason Chaffetz- he wouldn't have had the money to compete. Chaffetz has an 80% approval rating by the general public.

That said, as a delegate, I agree it would be unfair for the public NOT to have a Primary. I'll do what I can to ensure the members of the party are able to vote in a Primary this June and choose between the 2 best candidates.

I have personally spent dozens of hours studying, attending events for ALL candidates and speaking with my neighbors. I am mandated by my entire precinct NOT to vote for Bennett. I'll be voting for Tim Bridgewater and I'm pretty sure when my neighbors get to know him, they'll be pleased with my choice.

I agree with Conservative Veteran. People don't realize that it is the caucus system that enables candidates who aren't 'big money' to get in and compete. It's the reason a guy like Jason Chaffetz could get elected. I know that some don't like him but, with an 80% approval rating, I think most in this state are pleased with his representation of us.

I am a delegate. I've spent FAR more time researching, attending meetings, and studying than I have ever done before in my life- and I've always been politically active.

I will agree that the members of the party SHOULD have a chance to vote in a Primary this June and will do what I can to send the 2 best candidates forward for their consideration.

re: "supremelaw" @ 3:34
There are no "good" candidates or "bad" candidates; there are candidates with whom you agree and those with whom you disagree. It seems you choose to brand those with whom you disagree as "bad"; how sad for you. It also argues, I think, for an open primary instead of letting the ruling party decide whom I can vote for.

Primaries favor political parties and uniformed Americans. Caucuses attract the well informed citizens who do their homework. Caucuses are needed to balance the power to the people and great comments "Conservative veteran" and "supremelaw" you are both definitely well informed citizens and understand the true process of a republic

I was a State Delegate several years ago. I was elected the first caucus meeting I attended. It was a great experience and a real eye opener to the whole political process. From now on, I'm at every caucus meeting. The candidates know (as I do now) that the real power lies in the caucuses. Before the conventions the candadates have many meetings (mainly targeted to the delegates, but all are invited) where you can meet the candidates and make your own INFORMED opinions. You can ask direct questions. I found time and again, that the media (and the polls) don't always tell the whole or even the real story.

Those that want to do away with the caucus and go to the general primary elections are most likely very lazy and can't be bothered with the whole political process. If people what real power to make political change, the caucuses is where it's at. Like I said, candidates know this...why don't you?

I attended my caucus. I am a Bennett supporter and was not elected as a delegate. The system stinks. A minority of anti government extremists are taking over the party and denying the rest of the voters a choice. To extreme law you owe an apology. I am am not uninformed. Anybody can be elected a delegate and it does not mean they are better informed. It just means they have an agenda. What happened to democracy. Bennett would win re-election by a landside. Unfortunately he may not even be on the ballot. Shame on the anti-Bennnett crowd for taking away our right to vote for the candidate of our choice.

There's mischief in those conventions. In 2004 the convention eliminated the incumbent Gov. Olene Walker, who had an 84 percent approval rating with the public. Instead they rolled out the red carpet for Jon Huntsman. In hindsight, would Utah Republicans rather have kept Walker?

I'm only really familiar with 2 states - California where I lived for over 3 decades, and Utah where I've now lived for almost 1 decade. California has a primary system. To the first poster commenting about whatever a well run state means - well, California is all but bankrupt, also run basically by one party, high taxes and debt, and perpetually in a crisis. By comparison, Utah has to stay within its budget, and basically keeps things running well. Yes, in a bad economy there's cuts all around - but the infrastructure in CA is falling apart. The schools are old and decrepit, needed road repairs are not happening, etc.

I don't know if our caucus system has anything to do with our good state of affairs vs. the horrible state in a state like California. But I'd hate to throw out something that's working. Not perfect, but good.

We keep hearing again and again from caucus supporters, how everyone can join a party and show up at their caucus meetings. They are entitled to their opinions on which system is better, they are not entitled to state untruths.

Again, apart from independents who wish to remain that way, (like our first President, George Washington), here is a partial list of people automatically excluded from caucus meetings even if they are registered with a party.

1) Military personnel risking their lives for our freedoms in Afghanistan, Iraq and many other places in the world.

2) Ex-patriots, temporarily overseas.

3) Service and religious missionaries serving through out the world.

4) People traveling on business or personal reasons.

All these groups could vote by absentee in a primary or vote early. But, they can't vote or attend caucus meetings or conventions.

Secondly, to suggest that just because someone shows up at a caucus meeting they more informed than a primary voter is unfounded and self serving. By that standard, I should be 20 times more informed than the 73% of new delegates, since I've never missed voting in any election, and rarely missed my mass meeting.

We need to leave the process the way it is right now. Republicans should vote for Republicans. With only a primary system, that leaves plenty of time for Democrats with nothing better to do in the primary election than to change parties for one election and vote overwhelmingly for the weaker candidate, in hopes of getting the worst one in for the general election and give the liberal-lefty Democrat a chance to steal one away. It happens in other states ALL THE TIME.

The current system of caucuses works really well for Utahs in most cases. The reason we have extremists on the ballot is a lack of participation by the average citizen. Each precinct in the state represents about 1000 people. At my GOP caucus meeting we had 8 show up on Caucus night. I am in a heavy republican district as well. The more people that attend the more likely the delegates elected will actually represent the views of the people. Those who show up make the decisions, weather in their caucus meetings or the primaries, or the votes in Nov. Remember Utah has one of the best voting percentages in the country and it still hovers at 60%.