Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letters: Political parties, mainstream media have too much power’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Sept. 29 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

No --

Those with the most money $$$ [Gadiantons] have the power.

Mark l
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

The only people upset with the current caucus convention system are the rich and powerful elites who think they deserve all the power to rule over the masses.

bill in af
American Fork, UT

Mark 1
I am neither rich nor powerful and have been a state delegate many times over that last 25 years. The caucus system is controled by which special interest group can get their people elected as delegates. Common mainstream citizens are left out of the process. The primary election allows all voices to be heard through the vote. I will be signing the petition because I distrust the direction our ulta-conservative Republican party has been heading since the formation of the tea party which does not represent how the majority of Utahn's feel.

one old man
Ogden, UT

I have been to many caucuses and served a representative to state GOP conventions. To believe they are not controlled by a small, loud, wealthy and very powerful minority is pure foolishness.

We NEED to dump the caucus and go to primary elections.

Utah_1
Salt Lake City, UT

We have a system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, the wealthy or the famous. This is a good thing, and should be preserved.

The Neighborhood Election and 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.

We want neighbors discussing the best candidates and finding ways to improve this state and the nation. If the system is changed, we would be dropping off votes, but not meeting and discussing candidates and issues. That is what is wrong with Washington, D.C. They don’t listen to each other in a meeting. They watch from their offices. We need to change that, not perpetuate it.

Utah_1
Salt Lake City, UT

Our current problem with voter turnout is it has not kept up with the population increases. 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. We need to educate those moving in and not understanding our system.

Many citizens who attend their neighborhood elections and caucus meeting become interested in politics and get involved in their communities, the state and the nation. They meet and help candidates become elected. Some then later become candidates. This should be encouraged through education.

The system and the experience attending the meetings can always be improved, but the “Count My Vote” initiative isn't the way to do it. Any changes to the system the political parties use to determine their nominees should be determined by the political parties.

Utah_1
Salt Lake City, UT

one old man,
We already have a "bypass" system, filing as an unaffiliated candidate. A candidate can go straight to the general election ballot. Someone who doesn't think they can win if vetted by average citizens asking one on one questions can still run and spend their money. Why should they be a political party nominee if they are going to bypass their political party?

At only one time for 10 years in Utah’s history did the state depart from the Neighborhood Election, Caucus and Convention System. In 1937, a powerful democratic state senator convinced enough of the legislature to switch to an open primary. He had had two losses, a US Senate race and also for governor, because the majority of the convention delegates disagreed with his legislative voting record. But he was well known and had money.

Many at the time felt like an open primary was his ticket to the governorship, and he did win. But the change in the system only lasted for a decade. After public and media disillusionment, and even worse voter turnout, Utah restored the Caucus and Convention System. Why go back?

Utah_1
Salt Lake City, UT

bill in af,
Tea Party?
re: Sen. Bennett in 2010. He was not in the top 2 coming out of convention. In fact the more moderate Tim Bridgewater was selected by 57% of the delegates in the last round. Mike Lee managed to get 43% and make it to a primary. Sen. Bennett endorsed Tim Bridgewater during the primary, but with voters ticked at TARP and ObamaCare, they went with Mike Lee.

high school fan
Huntington, UT

I have been precinct chairman for several years now and run the caucus meetings when they are here but I am not sure who they are talking about when they say special interests control them. As best as I can tell, it is just me and my neighbors doing the best job that we can do. I believe that we are al just ordinary people.

Sandy Citizen50
SANDY, UT

If the Caucus system was fair, I would stay with it, but I am now leaning towards an open Primary. The Caucus system does not seem to encourage participation unless you are an out spoken member of your community. At least that is my experience. Generally, each Caucus votes for a representative for their District. At the convention the representatives then vote for who they like or feel is the best candidate. Overall, only a few people get to participate in a meaningful way. I'm frustrated with the system as it is currently organized.

happy2bhere
clearfield, UT

Do some of you who are Republicans and were glad that the Republicans won the House in both 2010 and 2012 remember that it was the T-Party that generated a lot of the momentum that got the Republicans elected in the first place?

Open primaries can be a Trojan Horse, as the opposing party can play games to get people nominated that otherwise are not the best for the party holding the primary. Only registered members of a party should be able to vote in a primary.

Everyone is a member of a special interest group, whether you know it or not.

happy2bhere
clearfield, UT

As for the mainstream media having too much influence, how would you change that? Their ability to inform, and therefore influence is what they are there for in the first place. As long as there is a lot of media presenting a lot of views and information, we will be OK. It is when a large part of the media become biased to one political view, or protect a viewpoint or politician from criticism that we need to worry.......

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments