Published: Tuesday, July 2 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
The caucus system in Utah is the best way to make sure a grassroots process can
win over large amounts of money. It is the only way someone with $100,000 can go
against someone with $2 million in election funds.We have a system
that that does NOT favor the incumbent, wealthy or famous. This is a good
thing.Our only problem with voter turnout is it has not kept up with
the population increase. The voter turnout keeps going up but not as fast as the
population. Some of that is the younger voters, where Utah has a larger
percentage of them and they aren't, as a group, as involved. Some of that
are those moving in and not understanding our system.
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, or run as a 3rd party candidate. “Count My
Vote” is attempting to change all party rules by changing state laws by
initiative, thus bypassing the political parties and the Legislature.We already have a "bypass" system. It is called filing as an
unaffiliated candidate. You go straight to the general election. So if some
don't think they can win if vetted by average citizens asking one on one
questions, they can run that way and spend the money. Why should they be a party
nominee if they are going to bypass the party?There were about
120,000 Republicans in Utah that went to the neighborhood caucus elections in
2012 to elect the 4,000 state and even more county delegates. We
have a system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, wealthy or famous. This is
a good thing. Keep fair elections in Utah.
Have you ever wondered why this newspaper along with its sister TV station is
losing subscribers? All you have to do is read this article to understand
why.More primaries mean more advertising dollars on TV, radio and
newspapers. It’s simple business here and money is the root of the
problem. I find it quite ironic this editorial complains about the power vested
on the delegate system when it is the same media, including this newspaper,
driving public opinion to convict and impeach Utah’s AG John Swallow by
publishing one sided accusations against him. It is the same media that has
been silent on so many atrocities committed by illegal immigrants that go
unreported. We can say the same regarding Common Core, Utah’s fight to
gain access to its Federal lands to extract natural resources and just about
every conservative principle involved in politics.Delegates study
the issues, get educated, stay involved in the process, hold elected officials
accountable and volunteer their service for 2 years. At the end of their term
they may run again or may be replaced by new elected delegates at caucus night.
You decide, power to the media or to the people?
This opinion piece sounds like sour grapes. How dare that the people vote to
keep the current caucus/convention system. According to powerful elites, the
local yokels don't understand what is good for them. They need to vote
again until they make the right choice. How dare they decide to keep a system
that makes it relatively easy to get rid of incumbents. Serving in government
should not be a lifetime job.
Headlines railing against the Democratic party when the Republican party did the
same thing? Biased much???
This is a paper owned by a Church that, in its Sunday School Manual, defines our
form of government as a Constitutional representative republic, not a democracy.
It appears there's a difference of opinion with its own newspaper
editorial board. There's a serious misunderstanding. The caucus system is
the constitutional representative election system that the states used to have.
It is the MOST inclusive and the closest to the people. It is a grassroots
system that gives neighbors the opportunity to meet directly with the candidates
and make decisions together. Those leading the campaign to eliminate the caucus
are promoting the systems that California, Connecticut and Colorado use. The
irony is that, when I've explained our system to their leaders, they have
told me how damaging their own systems have been to the Republican Party in
those states. While the elite in Utah who want only rich and famous candidates
to run and win - and the news agencies who make millions off ads and elections
by sound bite - want to be California, Connecticut and Colorado, California,
Connecticut and Colorado want to be Utah! Go figure.
Re: "The caucus-convention system is a fundamental deterrent to inclusion,
delivering disproportionate influence to the members of the exclusive club of
caucus-goers . . . ."And who can go to a caucus? Anyone!Doesn't sound real exclusive to me.The big advantage to
the caucus system is that important decisions about who will run for office, and
who the parties will support, are made in the open. Machine politics, on the
other hand, is played out in closed, smoke-filled backrooms.Opposition to the caucus system is opposition to the concept of open, honest,
democratic government.So, it's no wonder machine politicians
If both parties are guilty, why is it only the Democratic Party named in the
Machine politics/politicians are ok as long as only Republicans do it.
To "truth to be Told" you shoud tell the truth. According to PRWeb, the
DN was the 3rd fastest GROWING newspaper last year. See "Deseret News Ranks
as Third Fastest Growing Newspaper in U.S. and Largest in Utah with 88 Percent
Sunday Circulation Growth" at PRWeb.The TV station does not have
subscribers as it is a free over the air TV station.
Irrespective of whether you love or hate the caucus system, the editorial is
consistent in that the Deseret News has railed against the caucus system for the
Republicans and is now just returning the favor for the Democrats.Why now? I assume because the Utah Democratic Party Organizing Convention
just got over about a week ago and this is now ripe for discussion.Seriously folks. Look a little deeper. This is a consistent editorial stance
against the caucus system generally. You may disagree and prefer the caucus
system. No problem. But don't accuse the paper of not hitting both the
Republicans and the Democrats on the same issue.
The caucus system is representative democracy in action. Those who want to
participate get off their dime and attend. They vote for representatives and on
business. I have attended, ran for delegate, won and lost, gone door to door
groveling for dollars and handed out flyers and posted signs in my yard. Yeah, I
am old, and I began going to caucus meetings in my twenties. I
object to the DesNews editorial board's elitist attitude that the caucus is
not inclusive. We include anyone who shows up, but if the great unwashed masses
are too tuned into reality TV and computer games, I respect their choice to stay
home.An informed participative electorate is what is critical in a
democracy. Most people in Utah cannot name their representative, senators or
state officials. Some are marginally literate and have not read a book without
pictures in the past year, if at all. They surely don't subscribe to or
read a newspaper. These people are a danger to democracy as their
ignorance is easily swayed by the mega-bucks advertising that fuels TV, Radio
and Newspaper coffers. I think the bottom line swayed the editorial
board in this one.
If Democrats can't get LDS members they have no one to blame but
Great comment, Twin Lights. I am so surprised that almost none of
the comments here agree with the editorial--all Republican insiders and
suspicious Dems, it appears. As a regular attender of the caucus meetings,
I've found them to be frustrating to impossible since the day I turned 18
and started attending back in the 80's. I have seen more
moderate Republicans run off the tracks in my neighborhood caucus meeting than
could possibly be rejected in a wide election. Many decisions are made in
advance among insiders and old timers. I've heard those who regularly
attend and seek to be elected delegates mention their support of Sean Hannity
and Rush Limbaugh in their credentials, and sadly, a great majority of those in
attendance accept that as a credential, and elect them! That's how the
party has been defined for decades now. And that's why regular people quit
attending. It's uncomfortable and often useless to confront and argue with
your neighbors about these things. I say away with the caucus
system, and thanks, Deseret News, for taking a stand in support of the the wider
"Both parties in Utah voted this year to retain caucus systems that are
unique in the United States, and the recipient of valid criticism on grounds
they relegate voters to a backseat position in the journey to name prospective
office-holders."I find it quite ironic that in the state where
the voices declaring that the Constitution is "hanging by a thread" are
the loudest and the shrillest, you find the most effective efforts to rip the
Constitution apart. Redistricting in Utah and the caucus system fly in the face
of the government that our founding fathers had in mind.
The caucus system ensures that whomever the Seagull Forum supports, will be
elected.Of course the headline indicates it's only the dems who do
it, when in fact the abuse is all on the repub side.
FDR,Utah has has not had its redistricting submitted to be decided by a
judge. Idaho can't say that. How well is that working for you?The State House redistricting map had 74 of 75 house members vote for it. The
house member that voted against it won. In 2012 Utah, we have
primaries: Hatch/Liljenquist, Dougall/Johnson, Swallow/Reyes, McCartney/Valdez,
Okerlund/Painter, Vickers/Anderson, Perry/Galvez, Redd/Butterfield,
Anderegg/Moore, Handy/Crowder, Macdonald/Bagley, Sagers/McCoy, Kennedy/Nitta,
Muniz/Henrickson, Stratton/Murray, Christofferson/Kane, Greene/Stevens,
Layton/Daw, Nelson/Wright, Westwood/Carling, and Crockett/Winder, to name a few.
Not every race had a primary nor should it. Most of those were GOP primaries.
Re: ". . . those who . . . seek to be elected . . . mention their support of
Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh . . . and sadly, a great majority of those in
attendance accept that as a credential, and elect them!"The
saddest thing about that quote is that an American would think it's sad
that the candidate supported by "a great majority" would be elected.That's called participatory democracy! It's the shining
example we have to offer the rest of the world. It's what makes America,
America.Only those beholden to, or hip-deep in, anti-American
machine politics would shed a tear over the election of the people's
Utah has has not had its redistricting submitted to be decided by a judge. Idaho
can't say that. How well is that working for you?It is working
about the same way Utah Republicans want it to work in Utah - one party rule.
The current system has been in place for a long time. So how come the Deseret
News is so alarmed by it now? That question I can answer. The tea party
movement has effectively seized the Republican Party away from the Deseret News
and related organizations. No doubt to date the most alarming event in this
takeover has been the dumping of Senator Bennett. I don't think this is a
good enough reason to change the system, at least by the lights of what the
D-News has approved in the past.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments