I was initially excited about the level of attendance at my caucus but soon was
apalled by the level of ignorance prevalent among the attendees. Very few of the
attendees were aware of how many contenders there were for the state offices.
Even fewer could name half of them.If you are going to participate
please do your duty as a voter to properly research the candidates running for
office.Hopefully the delegates will give due diligance to all
candidates running and have an open mind. If the caucus were the state
convention I think Hatch would have the republican nomination in the bag.
I attended the Republican caucus, and joined with the large percentage of
attendees who were totally lost. The biggest problem, though, was not the
convoluted process hostile to new attendees. The biggest problem was the lack of
any transparency. After researching the state and Utah County Republican
websites, I still had no idea the attorney general would be elected. Nor did I
know anything about over 90% of the candidates. Apparently that didn't
matter, though, because the delegates are apparently not bound to vote with
their constituents (e.g., to support or oppose Sen. Hatch). Also, more needs to
be done for the rising generation. Most in my precinct were students, so it was
sad that no care was taken until the end of the meeting to help us understand
the fact that our insurance policies could change with us attending, etc.
@ Mike RichardsTherefore;A Party is not really a
“Republic” or truly “Representative” simply because
“Republicans” are members of that party.Seriously Mike
– your secret distain for having to eat crow and once again vote for Orrin
Hatch is beginning to show.
1aggieIs "Democrat" a noun or is "Democratic" an
adjective? A "red" house is an adjective that modifies the word,
"house". "Red" clairifies the word, "house".
"Red" by itself means almost nothing, but "red house" means
something.Should we use the words, "Democratic Democrats"
when describing "Democrats"? Are they not "Democrats" unless we
refer to them as "Democratic"?Words have meaning. Parts of
speech have meaning. Words used out of context mean very little. Would calling
it the Party of the "Democrats" be more accurate than simply saying
"Democrat Party?A Party is not "Democratic" simply
because "Democrats" are members of that party. A Party is
"Democratic" when the principles of "Democracy" are practiced by
its members. The "Democrat Party" is not necessarily
@1 aggie. Actually it should be Deemolib. Any party that can "deem" a
bill passed must be so far left that democratic has lost its meaning.
It was almost as though someone or some "organization" had directed the
larger crowd to follow Orin. If there is no primary I will have to vote
Democrat. 36 years is enough, but 42 is ridiculous.
It is the "DemocratIc" Party, not the "Democrat" Party. The
ignorance of the DN and it's readers is astounding.
@12.44 p.m.I would like to confirm these comments as I had largely
the same experience myself at my local precinct.You might feasibly,
justifiably have a preferred candidate but at Convention, as a nominee, you
should take the opportunity to question all candidates without having your mind
made up in advance; it would show intelligence, fairness and respect for all
those in you neighborhood to vet all competing for this Senate seat. After all:
He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto
him." (Proverbs 18:13) Usually, at least in my experience, a
nominee might express a preference but still say that he would consider all the
candidates thoughtfully before finally committing himself. Perhaps the problem,
judging by the literature that has deluged us recently, is that it may have
seemed to some nominees that the contest actually contained only Hatch and
Lindquist and they hadn't heard of the others. The precinct may have
lacked informative flyers for the other candidates.We are a people
who are, indeed, committed to the nation's founding document and
"Supreme Law of the Land" and should surely make that our most guiding
principle in elections.
High attendance means nothing unless those attending have an idea about what
they are doing.We had a very high attendance in our precinct. Most
of the people thought that they were at a Church meeting. They voted for the
people who had had significant church callings. Church callings
should never disqualify anyone from elected office, but it certainly should not
be the basis of voting for someone for civic responsibility.The two
delegates who will represent our precinct at the nominating convention were not
aware that the Bill of Rights prohibits Senator Hatch and his friends from
taking away our right to be told why we are being accused, or why we are not
being allowed to have council, or why we are not allowed a trial. When the ignorance of basic, fundamental Constitutional principles ruled at
the Caucus meeting, why do we even bother to hold an election? Why don't
we just appoint the most popular church leader to represent us? Everyone has the right to vote his conscience, but when ignorance rules, what
does that vote represent?
Agreed,I attended the Republican, Democrat, and Constitution Party
Caucuses.The GOP was by far the most skewed, biased, and heavy handed of
them all.The only ones praising the glory of the caucus system only
saw one side of it.Not much by way of a fair, or un-biased opinion.It was clearly evident how the very minority and extremist Tea-Party
easily high-jacked the elephant in the room GOP last election cycle.
This year's caucus was the saddest ever.Sure we had more people and
they had nothing to say.They just wanted to save Orrin Hatch's
hide.All of the nominees said they would vote for Hatchalthough they were obviously ignorant of all the other eight candidates
running in that race.I agree this probably representative of the
opinionof the generality of the folks here in Utahand the ignorance,
apathy and hostility to the Constitution of the United StatesThat
this opinion represents.And their rebellion against the teachings of Ezra Taft Benson and every president of their Church that ever spoke on
the subject of the Constitution.I am ashamed of my fellow
I attended the caucuses of both political parties. The reported "large
caucus turnout" this year is deceptive. There was a major change in
the boundaries of the voter districts from two years ago giving this turnout
illusion. My neighborhood had two voter districts before. Many voter
districts were collapsed into one very large voter district. This change
in voter district boundaries means there are fewer county and state delegates
from our area, making it less inclusive and more manipulated. The new state
Republican rules are more manipulative of the process, beginning with the new
convoluted balloting process for delegates. Attendees at the Republican
caucuses were not allowed to speak to the group about their opinions on the
candidates; only ask questions of delegate nominees. The opposite was true
for the Democratic caucuses. All of the races are highly contested, yet
only 4000 people out of 2 million people will decide who we will be allowed to
vote for. The undemoratic, manipulated Utah caucus system needs to be dumped
for direct primaries.
@educated_conservative. You are correct, the article does incorrectly state
that we live in a democracy. The following comes from Training Manual No.
2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.DEMOCRACY: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or
any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether
is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse,
without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism,
license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.REPUBLIC: Authority is
derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to
represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in
accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to
consequences. Based on a Constitution or By-Laws. A greater number of
citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids
the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in
statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the
"standard form" of government throughout the world.
@ Social ModIn my precinct it was over-whelming support for Hatch.
So don't count him out just yet.
In my precinct we had over 90 attendees (last year was 15 and in previous years
it was closer to 7). Out of the 8 State Delegate nominees, 6 were Tea-Party and
anti-hatch, 1 was anti Tea Party and very pro Hatch and the last was just
pro-hatch. In the first round of voting the anti Tea-Party nominee took over
50% of the vote. I have heard similiar reports from other precincts. Sounds
like better attendance will have a moderating effect on the Utah GOP this year.
This editorial describes our government in terms that sound awfully similar to a
"democracy." But I was assured by the legislature last year that the
U.S.A. is most definitely NOT a democracy. I guess the U.S.A. can be both a
democracy AND a republic, because they most definitely are not mutually
The price of non extremist representation is universal particapation.
Such a temporary surge in participation is only a short-term feel good fix to a
systemically broken system...we must abolish the caucuses...