Comments about ‘Voters, not delegates, should choose candidates’

Mr. Bernick seems to think that the delegates to the nominating convention were appointed or hatched or born into the job. The nomination convention is the SECOND stage of the election process. The FIRST stage took place at the caucuses. That FIRST stage is the most important stage in politics because that is stage where the voters select their precinct's representatives.

Mr. Bernick wants us to think that those who ignored the first stage should be able to change the process. Missed opportunities have consequences. Those who miss work aren't going to get a pay check. Voters who missed the caucus and who ignored their personal opportunity to contact the elected delegates have missed their opportunity to play a role in politics. They cannot enter the contest, after the fact, and expect those who have played by the rules to change the rules.

Mr. Bernick knows the process. He knows that more people turned out to the Republican caucus than ever before. He knows that we have a representative form of government. Why does he want to change the rules the day before the election?

Poor Bob....he's whined for a week about the delegate system we have in Utah. In all that time he's never made a cogent argument why it is not a good one.

Poor Bob --- well make that Poor Bob's because after tomorrow, both Bob's will be weeping and wailing!

@ Mike Richards:

What does the "representative form of government" have to do with anything? Political parties are not mentioned, much less mandated, by the Constitution. I trust the majority of Utahns to get it right much more than the majority of people who show up to caucuses.

And, I think you are taking an unfair shot at Bob Bernick. I don't think he's saying we should change the rules the day before the election; he's saying we should change things for future elections.
And I think you know that and are being disingenuous.

I second everything Mike Richards said in his comment above.

The current system was designed to favor incumbents. It allowed them to avoid a primary entirely if they could get sixty percent or more of the delegates to vote for them in the convention. That's the way it's worked until now. It is disingenuous for Bernick and Bennett to whine about a system that was designed to favor incumbents.

Bennett is mentioned in the USA Today today as follows: "If he loses, the message to lawmakers will be clear, he said: 'No more legislating. Just stand there and shout slogans.'"

Once again Bennett displays the out-of-touch arrogance that will result in his being turned out of office, hopefully at tomorrow's convention.

Well said, Bob Bernick. He is absolutely and exactly right.

What we really need is an open primary, where any voter in the state can vote for any candidate. That's the best way to get the best and most qualified candidates on the general election ballot.

Those who cling to the status quo are destined to lose.

Who favored the caucus system when it was first proposed? Utah's two sitting senators, Senator Bennett and Senator Hatch.

Why? Because back in the day they believed the caucus would favor the incumbent.

Who keeps trumpeting the need for senior senators? The incumbents.

Why does the seniority system in the Congress persist? Because it insures incumbents will be re-elected on the basis that they have more "clout" in Washington D.C.

Who knows best how to "get things done in Washington?" The incumbents.

Who attracts lobbyists' affections and who gathers the most in campaign contributions from them? The incumbents.

Why is the status quo so difficult to displace? The incumbents.

What's wrong with the system? The incumbents.

Who needs to go? The incumbents.

Who remains out of touch with the average American? The incumbents.

Who is responsible and accountable for what happens (more accurately, doesn't happen) in Washington D.C. The incumbents.

Who wants the status quo to continue until death? The incumbents.

Who won't get their way tomorrow? The incumbents.

Who will be amazed and theatened after the vote tomorrow? The incumbents.

Watch.

No more slogans?!?!

Hasn't that been the entire Obama agenda? "Yes we can!" Chanted like some crazy cult sacrament. Over and over again. "yes we can!" what? What? Change America into a European socialist state?

Bennett's answer for everything has been more government. Can you name me one big government program he has tried to end, curtail, limit or prohibit? And when he is not playing sophisticated Senator he is fighting at the trough of more spending. He has added literally tens of TRILLIONS of more debt and obligation to our grandchildrens expense account.

He makes me mad! And he has got to go!

And with Bernick...what I want to say is not printable. I have read his Marxist diatribes for years. Subtle but always taking the planks of the platform and advocating for them.

I have gone from a moderate, small "r" Republican to a ticked off something. The Eagle Forum makes me cringe...I'm simply sick and tired of our constant movement to State control of everything, at every turn.

Vote'm all out of office!

@8:36,
The Federal government has no authority in the nominating convention that will take place tomorrow. Your appeal to the Constitution is therefore mute.

Mr. Bernick knows the process. He is not a new-comer to politics, so why is he distorting the real facts? The real facts are that in Utah, we have a caucus system. That is not a secret. In Utah any registered Republican can attend his precinct's caucus meeting. In Utah, any registered Republican can run for the office of delegate. In Utah the caucus is the most important part of the political process.

Mr. Bernick gives voice to those who want to join a marathon race at the 26 mile marker. He wants those who didn't train, those who didn't sacrifice, those who didn't even know that a race was underway, to be allowed to run the last few yards and change the outcome of the marathon.

Sorry Bob, but you're too late. You knew the rules and now when the winner is in sight, you want to change the rules.

It strikes me as odd that the grass appears so much greener to the media on the other side of the fence. Florida and Arizona both have a primary system and yet Crist has bolted the GOP and McCain has become a dyed in the wool rule of law guy on immigration.

Parties do and should determine their nominating process. That process to a large degree is always going to be dominated by passionate party people. The moderates don't have more influence because they are either apathetic or more engaged in something else and not worried about government because it is generally run fairly well in this country and certainly in the state.

The caucus system works. The very governor's that Bernick mentions (Leavitt and Huntsman) both came through this process. Many good leaders at both the State and Federal level have been nominated through this process. Does it also nominate poor candidates - sure, but so does any other system.

I love the title of the article:

"Voters, not delegates, should choose ..."

Following that logic, we should also make the following changes to American politics:

"Voters, not Senators or Congressmen, should choose ..."

The new Health Care System would have never been passed if we just didn't have representatives. Cap and Trade would never pass, if we just didn't have representatives. Trillion dollar bailouts would never happen if we just didn't have representatives.

Mr. Bernick simply doesn't like representative government. And he is attacking it at its root with this article.

Why even have a primary election? Why even have a general election? To follow Mr Bernick's logic, we shouldn't be voting for representatives to send to Washington. We should just let the voters directly vote on every issue.

Primaries are not the answer. There was a primary in the Chaffetz/Cannon race and only 12 percent cared enough to vote. If we had primaries this year, there would be seven names on the ballot and one candidate could emerge with only 16 percent of the vote. Utah's process is not "broke" and it doesn't need "to be fixed". Over 90.000 Republicans attended their cacuses in March and elected delegates. The delegates will likely winnow the seven senate candidates to two, who will face off in a primary next month. A lot of people are involved. What we need is to get more to turn off the TV and take 10 minutes to vote.

Not only that, but Mr. Bernick writes of "partisan gridlock in Washington" as if it were a bad thing!

Bernick is part of the problem. People can and do vote. They voted in caucuses, but some now complain they were excluded. How? Anyone could vote in a caucus. Please do not say that the Republicans only allow Republicans to vote in caucuses or primaries. IF you are really interested in voting, change your affiliation for a day.

Also, what happens at convention will decide the parties' candidates, but those not selected can file as independents and run in the general election. Please stop the whining!

To We the People | 11:48 a.m.

Those of us who cannot stomach either party -- who are true independents -- were disenfranchised. Why do you think political parties should have so much sway? Why should they be able to co-opt the voters for their own power ploys? I personally think they should be eliminated . . . the voters would be better served if there were no political parties.

Would YOU please stop your whining and your bankrupt defense of political parties and their power plays.

Furry1993:
If you feel that you were disenfranchised (you were not), either 1)register for a party that best suits you and vote 2) register for a party you dislike and vote for the worst candidate possible 3)form your own party 4) do nothing but post on DN, but please do not say you were disenfranchised.

I do not think you were turned away from either caucus: you probably did not even try to attend.

You may vote for whomever you wish in November. Vote for anyone even if they are not on the ballot.

Please do not say your were disenfranchised, because you were not. Do not make excuses for yourself because you cannot find a political party with which you can affiliate. I do not agree with every element of the Republican platform, but I am a registered Republican.Maybe you should look at doing the same. Register with the party that best fits your ideals, be they conservative, liberal, libertarian, constitutionalist, socialist, marxist, green, or whatever else. If you are making a statement that you are "above political parties," you have that right, but you cannot vote in certain caucuses or primaries.

@ We the People:

Sorry, your argument doesn't hold water. The author of this article is dead-on. I wrote a lengthy post about this and it didn't send (instead, it loaded an advertisement--thank you, Deseret News). I don't feel like rewriting it, but the current method of caucuses and delegates ensures extremists run the party system.

The annoying thing about the caucases, at the least the Republican version, is you have to register as a Republican to participate. Yes, that seems right, because, after all, it isa Republican caucus. But that means joining them, becoming one, just so you can have a voice in choosing the next whatever office holder (since the Democrats have little chance in this state, the "R" is virtually an automatic). So, either join the party, or be left out of the process of choosing candidates. Please, don't make me be a Republican!

JMT said: " I have read his Marxist diatribes for years." Before you start throwing these terms around make sure you have some idea what they mean. You don't.

Utah politics are just as bad as Chicago, only it's a different party.

The screeners are at it again.

Marxism requires limted representation, and maximum democracy. The idea is noble in that representation is closed but to elites, while pure democracy is the ultimate in people power.

Practice is not as kind. Pure democracy is always the step before totalitarianism. Pure democracy is a mess and requires many moderators. Great leaders like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc have feasted on these concepts.

This is to the extreme but here we have Bob Bernick agitating against representative government and pushing in its place a purer democracy. Bob Bernick is consistent. He also agitates for a far more open ballot initiative process. It fits the noble concept yet in reality paralyzes the system for difficult choices, such as California or France.

And all of this is right out of the writings of the great Marxist thinkers over the past 100 years.

The next step after they push for democracy, is bi-partisanship. Once they have that they push for post-partisanship. After that, government by appointment. This is the aparachek of Eurasian fame.

We have had a representative system of selecting candidates for 150 years. It works well. Leave it alone Bob.