Yes, the caucuses were very much slanted this year toward the Senate race, but
that only shows that people cared much more about that particular race this
year, and not nearly as much about other races. So that's what most of
the delegate selection was (and SHOULD have been) based on, because that's
what the people cared about most. The caucuses work.
How can so many people be so misinformed about the purpose of a caucus?The caucus is the only time that the PEOPLE are involved in selecting people
from their community who will choose those candidates who are acceptable to the
people of the precinct.The purpose of the caucus is NOT to vote on
any candidate; it is to elect delegates who will vote on candidates at the
nominating conventions. Trustworthy delegates from each community are elected to
talk to the candidates, to listen to debates between candidates, to talk to the
people of the precinct, and then to elect honest candidates at the nominating
conventions.If people go to a caucus thinking that the purpose of
the caucus is to elect delgates who have taken a blood oath to elect Senator
Hatch or any other candidate, those people have gone with the wrong purpose in
mind.The caucus is not some kind of pre-primary election. It is
not the place where politicians pick the delegates; it is the place where the
people tell the delegates to find an honest politician among all the candidates
running for each office.
More like a ponzi scheme.
The same could be argued about our representative form of government. It sounds
like the author wants an ancient Greek style of democracy.
Re: Mike Richards: I agree with your reasoning. But my point is that some
delegate nominees will come with leanings for or against a particular candidate,
and that's okay. To expect otherwise would be unrealistic. And,
actually, if no nominees have any pre-conceived opinions about any candidates,
that's a potential bad sign that nobody is paying much attention to
what's going on in government.No, potential nominees should not
come to a caucus with their mind completely made up. But if some nominees have
certain candidate leanings, they should openly state those leanings. Then the
attendees can take that into account in choosing the delegates, as long as they
feel those delegates are trustworthy and will be diligent in vetting all the
candidates (in spite of current leanings).This year most nominees
(and attendees) leaned either for or against Hatch, and didn't care nearly
as much about the other races. Therefore, it was entirely okay for the
attendees to give that factor a lot of weight as they made their delegate
choices (again, as long as they felt that those delegates could be trusted to
vet all the candidates).
This issue boils down to one simple question: is the caucus system the best way
to fight political extremism? Clearly, the answer is no.The caucuses
of both major parties were dominated by extremists. The views of the vast
majority of citizens were simply not represented. Anyone with a moderate
viewpoint was either discouraged from attending or was shouted down.The bottom line is this: political extremism is destroying this Country. The
caucus system is a part of this destruction, and thus, must be eliminated.
Only the election for the people's chamber, the House of Representatives,
was originally chosen directly by the People. Nowadays it is different of
course, Senators are also elected directly. Pursuing the same direction there
seems to be a clamor for direct popular elections every time someone is to be
chosen for public office or to be a candidate for elective office.I
disagree entirely with a Primary in which a popular vote determines who the
candidates for election shall be, and, especially as far as the Senate race is
concerned, the full slate of candidates was largely unknown anyway making any
thoughtful, intelligent choice impossible. I must say that the ads
aired by KSL Radio didn't help, those in which KSL listeners were being
directed to go to their caucuses for the express purpose of "voting
for Orrin Hatch". I am afraid that the very ads on KSL are sometimes
regarded as directions from God, and not a paid advertizement for a political
candidate or supporting organization.
The best way to fix the problem with the caucuses is to eliminate them. At
least, with a primary election vote, a voter can be sure his/her vote goes where
s/he wants it to go. that's absolutely not true with a caucus.
I totally agree that the caucuses are a sham. At my caucus, we did mention the
other offices that delegates will elect, but that was about as far as it could
go--;mention. At least that occurred and we got a minimal expression of who the
"candidates" would support. However, all registered voters should get to
vote for the actual candidates. And why, if we elect delegates to conduct
business at the convention, can they vote by secret ballot? All of this is
clearly a hijacking of our rights, our votes, our representation in government.
The Tea Party is supposedly named after the Boston Tea Party, a
group who revolted because of taxation without representation. Yet, the modern
Tea Party would disenfranchise voters and reinstate taxation without
I have to agree with the observations in this opinion. But only if this was the
only caucus you have ever attended. Most caucuses are not like this
year's (where one issue dominated the caucus "Will you vote to nominate
Hatch").Usually people want to hear the potential convention
delegate's thoughts on a myriad of topics (not just if they will vote for
Hatch or not).THIS caucus was a joke... unless all you cared about
was Hatch (for or against).
John Charity Spring,Caucuses are not INTENDED to fight against
political extremism.Hint... The founding fathers of the United
States were seen as "Politica Extreemists" in their day. Especially by
the royal crown in England.The caucus system was never intended to
be a tool to keep "Revolutionary" or "Politically extreem" views
from being expressed... or to insure that the crown's people always got
nominated and elected.I think it's a GOOD thing that the caucus
system allows even people with what the ESTABLISMENT calls "Extreem"
views to express themselves AND be represented.If it weren't
for "Political Extreemists"... the United States would STILL be called
"New England", or maybe even "New France" today.