Comments about ‘Pros, cons of Utah going with open-primary system’

Once again Webb and Piganelli fail to see the situation anything as other then red vs. blue, right vs. left republican vs. democrat, or conservative vs. liberal. Open primaries or not, until we get real choices, it won't make a difference. The saddest part is that Republicans and Democrats agree on some of the most important issues. For dozens of years now, both parties have increased the size of government and it's influence into our lives. Both parties have decided to fight unconstitutional wars while sacrificing our best and brightest. Both parties have spent the money of generations unborn to maintain power and gain favor. Change does not start with an R or a D.

All but 7 out of 50 states have a Primary election, due to the ability of a small special interest group to control the outcome of the conventions.

Eagle Forum, National Rifle Association, National Education Association, Utah Education Association, etc. all have more control of the candidates with a convention and fight to keep it going in Utah.

I beg to differ with LaVar Webb's comments. Bennett and Hatch are some of the most powerful incumbents in the entire Senate and they are elected here in Utah's convention system. They have been unsuccessfully challenged several times and the delegates DON'T like them.

Look at all the elected people in Utah that keep on going. Leavitt had several terms, Shurtleff has completed 3 terms, Senator Michael Waddoups has been an elected legislator since 1987, despite being the chair of the Redistricting Committee that created the worst gerrymandering in the NATION!
The convention is really working for incumbents.

Utah is filled with politicians aiming to die in elected office. Senator Howard Stephenson has been a senator since 1993, Senator John Valentine has been in an elected position since 1989. (Note he was appointed to fill a vacancy in both the house and the senate and could run at the convention as the incumbent) Margaret Daayton has been in an elected legislator position since 1996.
Senator Curtis Bramble has been a senator since 2001.
Primary elections help WHO?

Powerful incumbents keep on going in Utah conventions!

The best example that comes to mind is Matt Throckmorton v Chris Cannon. Throckmorton received 42% of the votes for less than $10,000 at convention. Then received roughly the same percentage in the primary for another $60,000.

This means that the little guy has a chance at the convention. During the primary Cannon spent over $700,000 and won. Proving that ultimately money trumps all.

At least by keeping the primary you have a chance. Otherwise the whole process would be owned by corporate America through their lobbyists and PACs.

Headline: Utah has one of the best-managed state governments in the nation.

Headline: Utah is one of a few states with a caucus/convention nominating system.

Franks' conclusion: Utah should copy the other states.

What?!!!

LaVarr: I must discount the opinion of you and your FaceBook friends because you, to me, are political insiders. As a Republican who isn't on the inside, I have the same problems with the convention process that you have with an open primary. I go to my caucus meetings and dn't get elected to anything because others can talk about their connections with Utah Republican nobility: Valentine, Cannon, Bramble, Lockhart, etc. So I head home put off by the whole process, wishing I could have a primary vote, so at very least I could let some of those in power know that not everyone thinks they're as great as our delegates do.

So take that: you feel the convention gives everyone a voice. I feel it does the opposite, with my own experience year after year as the proof.

What Webb and Pignanelli won't endorse because it could undermine the bottom lines of their political favor brokerages is a competitive and represenative multi-party system that allocates political representation based on the percentage of the vote a coalition of candidates (or a political party) receives.

Fewer than half of registered voters in Utah affiliate with the Rs and Ds, yet they hold all of the seats in Utah legislature.

The two-headed, one party system is what is wrong with this picture.

One must only visit a State convention to see that LOTS of money is spent. It is not a poor boy's place. Every voter should be targeted by the candidates, not just those who are delegates.

Utah would be better served with an open primary. Let every party member have a vote for each race.

If the Utah delegates are anything like the people who attended the county convention in Texas where I was last election, an open primary would be the way to go. I came out of there questioning if I even belonged in the Republican party. It was dominated by fringe elements who wanted to pass resolutions condemning "world government", impose harsh rules regarding undocumented immigrants and generally focus on their paranoid little world views.

I suspect the democrat side would be dominated by rabid feminists, union shills and communists rather than reasonable people. Do we want these sorts to have disproportionate say in determining who is on the ballot?

Frank doesn't like the precinct caucus because he is a democrat and a liberal. He hates the thought of conservative voters in Utah having so much political input. As for the democrats he is accurate in that the voters really have no choice. The candidates are all chosen at their convention. The Republicans on the other hand often have to choose between two candidates in a Republican Primary.

The problem Frank has is that he doesn't get to vote in the Republican Primary. Perhaps the democrats should give their voters a choice once in while

The Republicans could improve their system if they would reduce by about half the automatic delegates, and let them be chosen in their precincts.

I think Frank is antiquated.

It's outrageous that only 2,160 people could choose your next US Senator.

That's right, it will only require approximately 2,160 Republican State Delegates out of 3,600 chosen next March (60%) to vote for someone else over Bob Bennett and you have a new US Senator (face it, the Democrats aren't going to put up a fight for this seat in November 2010 - Matheson is running for Governor)

That is outrageous and before I here any Skousen-ists, pop off with the Many elect the Few who elect the One principle (which BTW I agree with), consider this: The many don't elect the few at caucus night. Caucus night attendance is hardly "the many". These are loosely run and lightly attended meetings. Sometimes it's only 1 guy hiding in his house with the light off waiting for would be attendees to knock then leave thinking they have the wrong house. When they do leave, the hiding scoundrel then marks himself as state delegate and sends in the paperwork to the state party.

Does that sound familiar Mike R.?

Actually, most caucus meetings are held in schools, now (at least along the Wasatch Front).

I know Mike R. Although I don't agree with him much, he has never advocated those types of meetings. He firmly believes that as long as all Republicans are allowed to participate in caucus meetings, the best ideas and people (his and him, in his opinion) will be elected.

I remember a conversation with mike from a few years ago. He would rather use IRV or some other preferential voting system insteat of the simple plurality ballot. That way, there is no need for a convention or a primary. His views on that may have changed, but the idea has merit.

No, most caucus meetings for the GOP are in homes and most for the democrats are in schools - in Salt Lake County.

60% of all delegates want someone other than Bob Bennett, so he is toast.

In March of this year Bennett was rated one of the ten most liberal Republicans in the Senate by Human Events based on the American Conservative Union Ratings for 2008. Why Bennett would pay money to convince voters he is Conservative is beyond me.

All politicos should go read the afterword from Empire by Orson Scott Card.

Right/left, blue/red, conservative/liberal.....this is going to be the downfall of our nation.