The caucus system is the best way to make sure grass roots movements can work
over large amounts of money. It is the only way someone with $100,000 can go
against someone with $2,000,000 in election funds.There were about
60,000 republicans in Utah that went to the neighborhood caucus elections in
2010 to elect the 3500 delegates. Add to those numbers to democrats and the
primary elections and certainly the municipal elections didn't do any
better in voter representation. About twice that in 2012 to elect 4,000 state
GOP delegates.Most people that want the caucus system changed, there
are exceptions, are frustrated that they don't have as much power as people
that show up to the neighborhood election caucus meetings. It doesn't take
money, you just have to show up.What we need are more people getting
involved earlier, not shutting down the system that protects us from power
hungry people wanting to take over. Mr. Webb trying to kill the
caucus system isn't the answer. It wasn't 10 years ago and isn't
today or tomorrow.
What will the coming year's legislative session look like?Easy
to answer that question.It will be insanity as usual.
The caucus system is a good one, even though LaVarr Webb wants to undermine its
grassroots effectiveness. Now he's calling his misguided efforts to
undermine it "structural reform." Different name, same bad idea. Keep
the caucus system as it is.
Open primaries. Nothing better. You still have to have a large amount of money
to run a campaign. How many private individuals have $100K much less $2 million?
They still get to have grass roots volunteers working the neighborhoods and
letting all people know about their candidates. The caucus system only protects