Comments about ‘Letter: Keep the caucuses’

Our Caucus system will only work when the attendance is greater than the voting turnout at primary elections. In either system, caucus or primary only, low turnout favors the candidates supported by the activists, those at the extremes of each party, instead of our moderate majority. The only answer to good government is to have more participation.

Caucuses do let neighbors get together to discuss their political positions. That's a great feature. But caucuses do not give any advantage to poor or unknown candidates. Poor or unknown delegates-maybe. But not the candidates for office. As you saw at our last caucuses the discussion was basically formed around the candidates for office that had already spent a lot of money to influence caucus attendees and their eventual delegates.

Great letter. I too was concerned about Coleman's misleading op-ed. The caucus system gives a lot more power to the people than would be possible with just a direct primary. Keep the caucus system.

"Without the caucus system, as is true in other states, those candidates would only give one-on-one time to people with lots of money or influence and almost never to some working person"

Newsflash: This is still happening. Delegates aren't often "working people." They're typically someone with a large family, high up in their ecclesiastical position, have a lot of family and friends at the caucus to give them support, and ranted against Hatch (and compared him to Obama).

Then, there's that whole issue with accountability. We won't know who these delegates voted for in all the other positions. It's about accountability. We cannot hold delegates accountable for votes that SHOULD be ours!

This system may have been good in the 1800s. But today, Utahns can get informed by a simple google search. Many of us have the time to get involved in politics. We just need the means! Give us the primary vote! Judging by the amount of letters written in support of this move, I believe you pro-caucus folks are in the minority. And we will NOT be ruled by the minority.

All the letters to the editor have proven one thing: We need to keep the caucus system.

- If we only had a primary with 10 Democrats and 1 Republican on the ballot, the Republican would win because the votes for the 10 Democrats would be diluted. That wouldn't be fair to the Democrats and it wouldn't represent the actual desire of the people to have a Democrat in office. The cost and time of having multiple run-off elections are avoided when each party chooses its own candidate(s).

- People are politically ignorant. They confuse the duty to vote with the responsibility to be informed before voting. We all know that most Utahns, even today, weeks after the caucuses STILL cannot name even the majority of the candidates running for office. How can people who are ignorant of the issues and of the candidates choose the BEST person?

The founding fathers were wise in establishing a representative type of government. The caucuses prove their foresight and their wisdom. Honest and diligent delegates can be chosen, delegates who will explore the issues and vet the candidates.

The caucus is an excellent system and it works.

I agree. The Caucus_&_Convention system has plenty of problems. My local caucus had some problems this year, but I think we could improve on that next time, but that doesn't mean you throw them out just because they had a few imperfections. That would be like the proverbial "throwing out the baby with the bath water".

We should work on IMPROVING our caucuses... not ELIMINATING this opportunity to meet with our neighbors, discuss issues, and pick convention_representatives.

I still don't understand why so many people want to take this grass_roots involvement opportunity away from me... And then claim the caucus prevents me from having any local involvment.

I know they mean well... but in most cases they really don't know what they're talking about and from their comments it's obvious they don't even understand how a caucus works or what they are for. And they for sure don't have anything better to propose (at least nobody has responded to my requests they share the perfect method for parties to pick who they will nominate for the party_primary.

@Mikre Richards:

You are confusing issues here. A primary can be closed just as Utah's caucuses are.You need not have a primary with 10 Democrats and 1 Republican on the ballot. Indeed, I do not know of any state that has that kind of primary. Your argument is a red herring, which is a poor form of argument.

I agree people are politically ignorant. A primary would make them (somewhat) less so. Candidates do little to inform caucus-goers, reserving their efforts for the delegates. This stratifies the electorate even further. There will always be low-information voters (just as there are in the general election), but a caucus system does not help.

As a delegate to both the Salt Lake County and the Utah state conventions, I'd say Coleman was right. The caucus system doesn't work.

By the way, I don't really care which candidates the voters in my precinct area support. I'll be voting for the candidates that I prefer.

re: Micawber,

If you've read the pro/anti caucus letters and comments that have been published this year, you surely know that many are calling for open primaries where anyone can vote for any candidate - regardless of party affiliation. It is certainly not a red herring. I addressed an issue that is being discussed.

If we all conceded that closed primaries were acceptable and ignored those who wanted open primaries, we would still have a problem if three or more candidates were running. Unlike the Republican caucus and the Republican nominating convention, in a primary race with more than two candidates on the ballot, one candidate could "win" without having a majority. Unless there is a run-off election (perhaps several run-off elections) that ensure that the "winner" actually received a majority of the votes cast, we would have a system that is even more unfair than the system we now have.

If Hatch "won" with 49% of all ballots cast and two other candidates together got 51% of the ballots, Hatch would have won with a minority of the votes. If a run-off election were held, he could very likely loose.

@micawber,
You seem to assume (as many do) that we don't have primary elections in Utah. We do. But historically nobody seems to show up and vote in them (10-20% turnout). The caucus system doesn't REPLACE the Party's Primary Election...it picks the people who will be on that primary ballot.

Don't worry... you'll get to vote on Hatch. In the party primary or in the general election if he gets past that. Don't worry...

Same goes for the rest of the offices in the County and the State. YOU WILL get to vote on them. You don't have to do away with our neighborhood caususes to get your vote!

The neighborhood caucuses take place BEFORE the primary.... don't worry... the will be a primary.

Mr. Warren,

It looks like you would fit right in with President Obama. He does not care what the people want. It looks just like you would be very comfortable with Representative Pelosi. She does not care what the people want. It looks like you would be best friends with Senator Reid. He does not care what the people want.

Maybe you better study up a little until you know what it means to represent a precinct. You were not elected to do what you wanted to do. You were elected as one of the precinct's representatives to represent the will of the people in your precinct.

I surely hope you get hundreds of telephone calls from citizens living in your precinct who want you to understand that you work for them.

It has been enlightening to hear some of the comments.
The caucuses do give us an opportunity to discuss with members of the neighborhood -but can we be bothered?

I think that one precinct is made up, on average, of over 1,000 homes. That would suggest, even now, a low turnout, but a few of the attendees are people who care about the process. The process, however, is not clearly understood although it is explained, or should be, by those directing the meetings.

The basic problem, whatever the system, is that most seem not only ignorant of it, but don't spend the time or effort to learn. It's all based on "faith in the arm of flesh".

Someone seems to be a good man (or woman) and that's it; this goes for the candidates as well as the delegates. If a candidate isn't well known from a long incumbency, then you go with the choice of the State GOP. If someone isn't favorably covered on KSL, or other network, news he doesn't exist.

All is well in Zion; that is the assumption and that assumption seems to be the problem.

@Mike Richards
While I haven't read every comment about the caucuses this year, I don't think people are proposing what you are suggesting. They might propose an open primary, where independents and Democrats could vote in a contested Republican race. But I haven't seen anyone advocate that we put Democrats and Republicans on the same primary ballot for partisan races. Have you? By the way, I don't think Democrats should be allowed to vote in Republican primaries or vice versa.

@2 bits
There are primaries? I'm sure that is comforting to (former) Senator Bennett.

re: micawber,

Read more and know the people who are posting. Keep track of their political preferences. Know their opinions. Know their preferred party.

Yes, MANY posters have advocated that Democrats be allowed to vote in Republican primaries. Many posters have advocated Democrats be allowed to choose Republican candidates.

The important point is that anyone who appears on the general ballot MUST have received a majority of votes from those voting if the will of the people is important. A plurality of votes is NOT sufficient.

One of the reasons that caucus meetings sometimes run long is that we vote until someone gets a majority of votes cast. In my precinct, we were allowed two state delegates. We didn't just vote one time and take the two candidates who received the most votes. We voted until one candidate received a majority of votes and then we started over and voted until another candidate received a majority of votes. EVERY delegate was elected by a majority of the voters.

Dump the caucus and fire them all this November 2012.

Happy Easter.

Up and up it goes, where it stops, nobody knows.

The economy is still fraught with problems. It's undergoing the longest period of sustained high unemployment since the Great Recession. This is also one of the weakest recoveries on record, averaging GDP growth of just 2.5 percent in the ten quarters since the recession.

But the market is partying like its 1999. In just the last six months since early October the S&P 500 has soared an astounding 32 percent. In the first quarter of 2012, the index was up 12 percent, the best first quarter performance since 1998.

That said, the market has risen on relatively thin volume. Many investors have been sitting out this rally on the sidelines. Individual investors I speak with are still spooked by the recent memory of the financial crisis and seem to believe that this rapidly rising market is just setting up for a fall.

Are they right?

History is not on their side.

Going back to the 1950s, in the 13 first quarters when the S&P has risen 8 percent or more.

Why not now?.

@micawber,

Senator Bennett lost the support of his base in Utah and started representing Washington and his party more than his constituents in Utah... so his Utah base voted no_confidence on him.

Bennett didn't even get enough votes at the convention to qualify for the Primary (two other people did, Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater). Mike Lee won the Republican Primary on June 23rd 2010 and won the right to face Democrat Sam Granato in the General Election in November.

Bob Bennett COULD have run as an independent (hint... the Republican Party is under no obligation to sponsor Bob Bennett).

Bob Bennett had every right to run as an Independent (as Joseph Lieberman did when he didn't get the Democrat nomination in Connecticut (because he wasn't anti-Bush enough for hard-core Democrats)... and Lieberman won the Connecticut election and went back to Washington as an independent. Bob Bennett could have don that... he just called it quits. The Republicans have no obligation to sponsor Bennett so you will be happy. They do what's best for the party. Same goes for the Democrats.

Re: 2 Bits: I agree that it was Senator Bennett’s time to go, because he’d become a little bit too Washington (although I do think he’s a good man, and I agreed with a fair number of his votes). But I also think Bennett showed a LOT of class when he decided not to run as an independent or write-in.

Mike Richards,

You original point, to which I object, is that Democrats and Republicans will be on the same primary ballot. I don't think anyone seriously advocates that, which is why it is a red herring.

2 bits,

I think you are incorrect. As I recall, under Utah law, once an individual has announced for nomination in a party, he or she cannot run as an independent. Yet another way Utah is different from Connecticut. Either way, the caucus system served to eliminate him from consideration in the primary, which he likely would have won. Instead we have the obstructionist, Mike Lee.

The caucuses need to be replaced with a primary. Too many of the precincts elect the same state delegate year after year. Why?

We had several that wanted to be the state delegate this year. Is not fair to have to choose one to represent the many. All should get to vote on party candidates.

Let candidates give their message to all instead of a few. The caucus system is not defensible.

At our most recent caucus the goal was only to keep Hatch in the Senate and everything else took a back seat. Last time it seemed to take place only to keep Bob Bennett. Who is running these caucuses? Clearly ours is run by establishment apologists, not by lovers of the democratic process, not by open-minded, public-spirited people. Something smells.

JohnCC,
You lamented "But caucuses do not give any advantage to poor or unknown candidates"...

Caucus meetings don't INSURE that poor/unknown candidates have an advantage over other candidates. But what system does? I don't know of one. Do you?

I know for sure PRIMARIES give a VAST advantage to the candidates who have money to blanket advertise, money to hire people and work their media campaigns full time, and buy name recognition.

So replacing neighborhood caucuses with a pre-primary-primary is even worse for poor/unknown candidates if you ask me... so what do you suggest???

I can't get any of the anti-caucus people to suggest something that would be better... they just want to do away with our neighborhood caucuses at all costs...