I always have a hard time understanding why someone would say, "Most voters
won't have a say in choosing party nominees, unless there is a primary
election."I showed up to my precinct caucus. I had a vote in
electing a couple of representatives from my precinct. They will represent our
precinct at the state convention on Saturday. So I, as a voter, had "a say
in choosing party nominees." I won't be at the convention myself, but I
will be represented.As far as I can tell, every voter in Utah had
the same opportunity that I had. Every voter had "a say in choosing party
nominees." From this perspective, the statement in the article is blatantly
false and misleading, and puts the caucus/convention system in a falsely
negative light, and continues the false negative stereotyping of Utah's
"Most voters won't have a say in choosing party nominees, unless there
is a primary election."Taking this thought to its logical
conclusion is like saying, "Most voters won't have a say in the U.S.
Senate. Only 2 Utahns out of over 2 million will have a say in the Senate."
Gee, I thought that the 2 Senators represent all of the voters of Utah. Maybe I
missed something, and all Utahns are expected to show up regularly at the U.S.
Senate chambers to cast 2 million senatorial votes?
Re: sjgf When you say "showing up gives me a say" that is just
what it gives me, just that a say. Problem is it gives me no guarantee that my
view or opinion will be voted! On the other hand, a primary gives me one vote
one person and quarantees my vote! When you come to think of it; if we had a
primary instead of the caucus system, would this discussion be necessary?
I appreciate this effort from the Deseret News that presents to us delegates
with different views but who appear to be seeking information before deciding
who they will support at Convention.I hope that all the delegates,
or the vast majority, will do likewise.