Since the reform effort failed it will be interesting to see the next step. Many
republicans will be angered by how diffricult the legislature has made the
iniative process the last few years. Every tine a iniative somehow makes it on
the general election ballot the republican dominated legislature makes the
iniative process even more difficult. if the GOP iniative somehow makes it onto
the election ballot expect changes to createte even more iniative hurdles to
Let's cut through the fog. On one hand the advocates for a new system say
they want "more" people involved in the process. Yet, are content to
have a couple dozen in the State Central Committee impose changes on the entire
party. Their effort is totally transparent. Mikey leavitt and his comrades want
a system where their friends in the "Elitist Party" to be able to buy
elections. That is why they are threatening a ballot initiative. They can buy
popularity. The current delegate system is the most noble form of representative
government possible. It really serious does come down to this; Do you want your
elected officials elected or bought?
Do you want fair elections in Utah or do you want more power going to the
lobbyists? Even LaVarr Webb (lobbyist) states that the current system is fair
and doesn't favor the incumbent, wealthy or famous. That seems to be the
problem they are trying to "fix".
You can't force people to participate in the process. My caucus last year
had over 80 people attend. That is over 10 times the number that came in
2010.The caucus system works just fine. It's because of Bob
Bennetts whining that it wants to be changed. After all, my caucus supported
Orrin Hatch and Mia Love. One won and one lost, but not by much.
The "low information" types don't care but are easily swayed by
populism. They should not be allowed to vote.Obviously written by an
elitist in group 1 above.
There are three groups in this fight, although only two are heard from.The active people who pay attention ans show up and deeply love our country
and its core principles and the Constitution are the ones defending the Caucus
system.The other vocal group is the party elites who are eager to
manipulate the process so that hereditary seats are perpetuated, or career
politicians remain invincible, or the approved inside the beltway
"moderate" ideas are touted. Their natural allies are the liberal media
outlets who profit handsomely from the advertising revenues from the well funded
party elites.The "low information voters" are the large
number of people who CHOOSE not to participate in caucuses, often don't
show up at election time, and know or care little about candidates or their
positions. They are easily swayed by "celebrity" name recognition, or
maybe media endorsements or advertising. These are the folks that the elite
party insiders claim to be speaking for. Chicago and Illinois are
the model desired by the party elites. Grassroots patriots fight
for the current caucus system. The "low information" types
don't care but are easily swayed by populism. They should not be allowed
"But our ultimate goal is to have everyone participate," Wright said.This statement cannot be true, considering that there isn't enough
room at caucus locations to handle the load if attendance were increased by even
5% from where it currently stands.My caucus was held in a Jr. High
school auditorium. There are not enough Jr. High Schools in the state for each
precinct to meet in one. And still, everyone will not go, due to competing
obligations (church, school, work, family, military...)And what good
would it do if everyone could attend anyway? They would all show up and walk
away empty handed as the same good-old-boys win the one or two delegate
positions. Then a convention of a few hundred in the county or a few thousand
in the state will pick all of our candidates with ZERO input from VOTERS.Early voting, absentee voting, day long elections gives EVERYONE
excluded by the Caucus / Convention system a chance to vote. It may sound silly
to party elitists, but VOTERS are the ones who should be voting for our
candidates. Supporters of this system are lying to themselves and
to everyone in the state.
The title of the article tells you everything you need to know about this
inter-party fight to "change" and eventually eliminate the grassroots
input out of the caucus system. Changing the caucus system is being led by the
progressives in the party and is designed to benefit progressives in the party.
Period. This is not about "reform". It is about revenge for ousting
Bennett and making Hatch actually work for the nomination last election.
Progressives don't want real conservatives who believe in the principals of
freedom, individual freedom and small government getting the party nomination.
It is about eliminating grassroots input in the system so that those who have
"put in their time" with the party, and have the biggest war chests move
up the ladder and stay there. Shame on them!! If they get their way, it will
only take a few election cycles for Utah to go the say of Colorado.
The current caucus system is unrepresentative of the public and allows for
fringe, special interest groups to control who the Republican nominee will be in
Utah elections. The result has been the election of elected officials that are
right of the majority of the Republican Party that already controls most of the
State. Such extreme non-representation has created an embarrassment to Utah in
the current U.S. Senate where the majority will of the people are being thwarted
by an purely ideological, right-wing philosophy that isn't even reflective
of the majority of Utahns. A more open, fair, and consensus driven electoral
system that nominates people who are willing to reflect the more moderate views
of even a conservative Utah is the best way to ensure that laws will be fair and
just for everyone, not just those who demand that only their more narrow beliefs
must be adopted by everyone.
"The current caucus/convention nominating process has many excellent
qualities that we wish to retain. The system allows candidates who lack fame,
wealth, and incumbency to compete for a party’s nomination. We also
appreciate the valuable grassroots nature of the process, withneighbors
gathering to discuss political issues and candidates."LaVarr
Webb, in a letter to Utah GOP SCC.
Actually, the current system doesn't favor the incumbents, the famous or
wealthy, and that keeps elections more fair. The caucus system delegates,
selected by their neighbors, picked the more moderate Tim Bridgewater in 2010,
it was at the Primary that Mike Lee was selected as the party nominee. The
voters were mad enough about TARP and ObamaCare that Sen. Bennett, who had
endorsed Tim Bridgewater for the Primary, would not have likely done much
better.Jim Dabakis has described the attack on the neighborhood
election caucus system as: "The initiative is a pure power play ..
Democrats, do not be manipulated into into helping the GOP insiders in their
internal war. DO NOT help the initiative–DO get involved in helping Utah
Democrats decide own own future by getting involved in our review of our