Another big difference between the caucus and primary systems is that in a
primary you vote by secret ballot just like in a general election. That feature
is one that party officials generally do not want to call attention to.
Sal,Sen. Bennett won a spot on the ballot for 18 years because of the
caucus system. Now that he lost, the system is bad?We have a system
that that does NOT favor the incumbent, wealthy or famous. That is a good
thing.What happens when you can't make a parent - teacher
conference night, you make sure your voice is heard another time. You can
contact your elected delegates and express your opinion. Your voice never goes
quiet unless you don't open it. You can help candidates you believe in win.
If the Count My Vote group wins, your voice will be harder to hear
over the money required by the open primary system. It will be the wealthy and
the lobbyists that will have more say. Why do you think they are backing this?
I don't know & trust anyone well enough to basically let them vote for
me. How about you caucus supporters know & trust the general public enough
to let them make the decisions for themselves?!
The caucus system certainly is not perfect,no system is, however something the
rural counties need to consider is that if they ever want to see their Senators,
Representatives or Governor visit them in town halls, do not support this
"Count My Vote " petition. If we lose the caucus system in Utah we will
not have the representation of our elected leaders, they will simply be forced
to spend their time and resources not only in the large cities and counties in
northern Utah but out of state trying to get big money from lobbyists to finance
their campaigns. No offense but do you really believe someone like Orrin hatch
would have shown his face at all in Southern Utah without being held accountable
to the State delegates the voters here elected through the caucus system? I
The biggest problem is knowing about the candidates. Without the ability to
adequately judge them, the difference between caucuses and some kind of primary
election is tweedlee vs. tweedledum. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses.
Elections do have power to generate debates between candidates, which is good.
I couldn't disagree more with this opinion. The caucus system is run by a
bunch of cronies who shut out those who don't toe their version of the
Sorry Blake, you can kiss the caucus system goodbye. Delegates do not represent
the voters. They certainly didn't when they ousted Bennett against the
will of the people. Plus, how do you account for 10,000 missionaries left out
of the process, and thousands of military personnel who cannot attend the
"The caucus system represents a republic form of government. Nowhere in the
Constitution or founding documents of this nation will you find the word
might check out Article 1 of the Constitution. It requires that members of the
House of Representatives be chosen by “the people”. Cozzens needs to
explain what exactly he thinks the framers had in mind.Contrary to
what many believe, democracy preceded republican government in America by a
century and a half. William Bradford became Governor of Plymouth Colony by
popular vote of the Pilgrim colonists in April 1621. Throughout the history of
colonial America, elections were held for offices including colonial
legislatures. So although the American republic didn’t come until 1776,
its roots are found in the English models of democracy that were transported to
the New World where they started taking root and developing an American spin of
their own long before George Washington was even born.I understand
why some partisans oppose the primary system. It threatens the party
establishment that wants to keep control of choosing candidates.
2 bits you nailed it! Great letter Mr.Cozzens we appreciate your leadership on
this topic. "Count my vote" is simply an effort to "Buy my vote"
by the rich elites that have been listening to the sniveling Bob Bennett. They
need a way to control things, they don't like to let the surfs have a say
in the process. BTW for those Mike Lee haters, he was elected in a primary
against Tim Bridgewater not the 60% at the convention, in fact Bridgewater
almost beat him due to Tim Stewart and his underhanded temple mailer.
Does it really matter if we have a primary system, or a caucus system... if
nobody bothers to vote in the primaries? Which is the case BTW.Where were all these people crying for primaries a month ago when we got like
10% turnout for the primary election?IF we could get all these
whiners to show up at their party primary... THEN I could be convinced that
replacing neighborhood Caucuses with primary is a good idea. But not when only
10-15% bother to show up and vote in the primary election.Wa wa...
it's hard to get to the meetings... it's hard to get to the primary
too. If it's too hard to get to your neighborhood meeting it's going
to be too hard to get to your primary (where there is no discussion of the
candidates and ya'll just vote based on the sign you saw on somebody's
lawn, or the commercial you saw on TV). Guess what...It's not
easy to study all the propositions and candidates.If you feel
disenfranchised because it's not easy enough for you to make an uninformed
push-button choice... good for you... stay home.
I can't stand the caucus system. It is hard to get to the meetings, there
is no parking and you have to park blocks and blocks away. Then it takes forever
and what am I voting for? A stranger who is going to pick out for me who is
going to pick a candidate for me? We never discuss the candidates, delegates
just stand up and say something lame like "I believe in motherhood and apple
pie, you should pick me". There is no vetting of candidates, who are these
people? Then the delegates get duped at the party convention. I feel
So those that are commenting here who favor getting rid of the neighborhood
election (caucus) would rather have big lobbyists and consultants buy the
elections? Please explain. That makes NO sense! I think you are the sour
grapes Bob Bennett Republicans. At least with the neighborhood
system, the people can be a check and balance against the big money lobbyists to
minimize crony politics. If you investigate this further, you may discover that
you will be giving the strength of your individual voice to the Karl Roves of
the world if you eliminate this grassroots system. Other states are facing
bankruptcy because they have abandoned this local control. If the
extremists of both parties are controlling the outcome, please explain how we
elected moderates such as Orrin Hatch and Jim Matheson who have both supported
socialist health care policies? Or how did we elect a state legislature so
moderate that it stopped a Prohibition of Medicaid Expansion bill? And that
also supports the big government takeover of our schools through school grading
and public-private partnerships also called "Charter Schools" where the
taxpayers funding those schools no longer have a voice with school boards they
Best?Does it even serve Utah? I certainly haven't
seen it. If you look at our Congressional representation how can you not help
but be embarrassed?
This is a great op-ed, and I fully agree. The caucus/convention system is a
wise arrangement, and it works well. It gives qualified newcomers a better
chance to get elected without needing tons of money, which keeps incumbents more
accountable to their constituents. It gives average citizens a much better
voice than going straight to a primary.
The idea that Blake Cozzens is a party hack is laughable. Party elite in every
other state in this nation have in one way or another decided that direct
primaries are the best way to get their candidates elected. If the party elite
(and who that is is debatable) here in Utah defend the caucus system, it is most
likely because the caucus system is what they are used to and direct primaries
open themselves up to future unknown factors.If you don't
believe in our Republic, and would rather have more democracy (a lousy form of
government) in our state, then support the "Buy My Vote" initiative.
Our caucus system works. It provides Utahns with a chance to make their voice
heard. Better than a primary would. I like that we hear from our neighbors,
then pick a few people to represent us to the party. It is a true form of
republican system that keeps this state one of the best managed states in the
union.Change to a primary, and we become Illinois. Keep our caucus
system and we keep corruption and big business at bay.
Blake,This is NOT the 1930s, there are MANY more means of communication
now than then.“Delegates are elected by the majority of their
neighbors who know and trust them” I only knew 1 of the two
delegates from my district, and my trust in the one I knew declined following my
discussions with him.My experience with the caucus was very
disappointing. Your vote does not count under the current caucus
system. The party elites want to keep it that way. Why else would
they sponsor a counter-petition drive with a similar sounding name? Their
intent is to confuse and dissuade. Why are they afraid of even
allowing a vote on the issue? If they are so concerned about the overall
democratic process, why do they oppose putting the issue before the voters?
The caucus system allows little guys like me to be able to serve in a political
office and vote and be responsible for what our nation does. The extremes we
see are because people have started to group into areas with like minds. They
represent people who refuse to look at facts and data and tend to knee jerk. but
extremes happen whether we have a caucus system or a primary but a caucus system
brings politics to the local level and forces the local people to take
responsibility for our government. Conflict in politics is not bad its part of
Re: "In my experience at multiple caucuses in different cities, a caucus was
a meeting of a group of extremists . . . ."That's just
elitist newspeak for "my candidate didn't win."Utah
can't afford to turn politics over to the moneyed elite. If critical
decisions about who represents us are taken as the result of high-stakes,
back-room deals, that will obligate candidates to perpetual fealty to those
moneyed interests, and remove our representatives even one step further from
those they ostensibly represent.Applying grass-roots, democratic
rigor to candidate selection is always a good thing.Stepping even
further away from the people represented would be a bad thing.
I don't think the caucus system necessarily favors extremists. It just
favors those willing to get involved at the grass-roots level... and that's
usually people who are very interested, or very motivated (call them
"extremists" if you will).I don't know if neighborhood
caucuses serve Utah the "best". But it's not the villain. Some
people just want a steady stream of incumbents and highly funded candidates to
make to the general election (without the incumbents having to be bothered with
new-comers, debates, and meeting the public at caucus meetings).But
a primary to pick the primary candidates would not necessarily be an improvement
over caucuses to pick the primary candidates. Proof:Nobody
showed up at Utah's most recent Primary election (most of you probably
don't even know the primary happened). If you can't be bothered to
show up at the actual primary election... how many people do you think would
show up for a primary to pick those primary candidates, and pre-primary
including relatively unknown candidates who haven't even really started
their campaigns yet? When you can't even show up and vote in the REAL
The Caucus system lets Gayle Ruzicka and her ilk determine who runs in an
election. If they aren't far enough to the right, Ruzicka yells "off
with their heads" (figuratively), and their heads go rolling (again,
What a surprise that the Iron County Republican chair would take this self
serving position. The anti democratic caucus system tends to maximize party hack
Really? In my experience at multiple caucuses in different cities, a caucus was
a meeting of a group of extremists (meaning they opposed everything the other
party did on principle & thought they were actively trying to destroy the
country). Most of them didn't know each other. There seemed to be two
purposes to the caucus meeting: (1) Let those in attendance yell about how
horrible the other party was (this took most of the time). (2) "Elect"
someone (often unopposed) without having any idea of his (almost always a him)
beliefs, policies, or how to contact him to hold him accountable for anything.
How are accountable representatives for the people coming out of this again?
(There, now the usual crowd can put some thought into their responses instead of
copying & pasting.)
The caucus system serves the entrenched extreme wings of the political parties.
It does not service the state of Utah nor its citizens.
The caucus & convention 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.Our 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. Also those
moving in and not understanding our system.Who gets to pick the
people that show up on the ballot? It is the voters through the caucus system.
The candidates get to decide if they are going to run and each of us vote to
have them vetted. We put the best ones we have that volunteered to run on the
ballot. One of the reasons we get involved in the caucus system is to have a say
as to who is on the ballot.We have a system that that does NOT favor
the incumbent, wealthy or famous.