Yes change the system so that only the monied 1% can ever be the nominee and
ordinary citizens are forever shut out of Utah politics. The system as is allows
ordinary folks to meet with other folks and earn the support of thier friends
and neighbors and become a nominee to just about any position one can imagine.
With our current system a minimum wage earner could concievably become governor!
Ordinary folks having the power of self determination is a good thing.
If you are going to run as a democratic candidate, you have to comply with their
rules. If you are going to run as a republican, you have to comply with their
rules. If you want to run and not have those rules, you can run as an
unaffiliated or independent. There are also 3rd party. This is an attempt to
change the party rules by state law, bypassing the party and is even an attempt
to change the law bypassing the legislature. This will NOT create
more participation. Between one of every 4 or 5 republicans attended their
neighborhood election caucus meeting this last year. One is every three told a
KSL poll they were involved or attending. There are 4000 state delegates that
spend countless hours vetting candidates to be on the ballot. They are selected
by those that attend the neighborhood election caucus meeting. You just have to
come.When people realize this will give them less of a chance to
participate but give media and power brokers more, they will not sign any
initiative. It sounds good, but so did the unethical reform proposed as
"ethical reform" which was a power grab by a few.
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.In 2012 the number showing up again
doubled. You look at primary turnout and you will see that few voters would
decide.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.
I kind of resent persons who complain about the system when they didn't
make any effort on their own to attend a neighborhood caucus. They want to
disenfranchise my participation, which requires some time and effort to sort out
for whom I should place my support, and just holler that they are being ignored.
In many cases, that's the right thing to do because government is shaped
by those who show up and get involved. It's not for whoever can gripe the
loudest and complain in front of a camera. If you want your views heard, GO TO
THE MEETING and express yourself. You'd be surprised that perhaps many
share your views. Over time, you'll be respected and gain insights that
allow you to be a shaker, not just a squawker.
Keep the current system.As long as republicons are continually
elected/re-elected, why change?
It absolutely does not. The Seagull Forum and their cronies essentially nominate
the people who make the ballot. It ensure only the right wing extremists are
elected when the majority of Utahns are a lot more moderate.
Re: DN Subscriber 2: Great comment. Well stated.The headline and
the editorial contradict each other. I agree with the on-line headline
("Utah's unique system of nominating works well"), but disagree
with the editorial itself. Our nominating/delegate system works fine, and
should be left alone.
The real truth is that the nominating process works well only for the special
interests who control our government. Over the years the politicians and their
controllers have prevented the ordinary mass of people to elect government
representatives. They have done this by only allowing a chosen few to be
candidates and by putting up roadblocks prevent people from choosing candidates.
When a business is seeking an employee, they do not limit the
candidates to a select few according to whether or not the candidate has a
particular political philosophy, they generally go by ability, education,
experience and suitability. Nor do they allow outside groups to choose who may
be candidates, except for certain guilds, associations, unions, etc. Any constitutionally qualified citizen should be able to post a resume for the
government job of representing the people. And the requirement that he/she be
rich should be removed. Campaigns should be abolished in favor of a written and
published resume for each candidate.
Keep the present system. It does indeed work well.Opponents fall
into several grumpy groups:1- Media organizations who profit
handsomely from running political advertising which would increase with more
primaries.2- Hack career politicians with lots of name recognition
and lots of campaign cash who would be able to lure "low information
voters"3- Party insiders who like to make "deals in smoke
filled rooms" to keep their pals in office. 4- Members of the
opposition party which can work mischief by getting their supporters to vote for
the opposition's candidate that THEY prefer.Utah's
delegate and convention system is a very fine method in which people who pay
attention to politics and candidates careful scrutinize candidates, often with
repeated personal contacts, not a couple of 30 second ads and a newspaper
Who writes the headlines?The headline on the Opinion Page reads:
"Nominating candidates: Utah's unique system of nominating works
well."But the editorial is the exact opposite of this.I have noted several headline problems over the past few months.Someone needs to pay more attention.