Comments about ‘New poll shows GOP caucus attendees support changes to nomination system’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, May 16 2013 7:15 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
tgadd435
Park City, UT

Looks like the Republicans in this state get it. Now we will see if the delegates will listen to the people they represent OR if they will ignore it to keep the power. If they don't vote to relinquish some of the delegate power they will lose the entire system. Mr. Cox is basically saying, "we don't care what you think WE KNOW WHAT IS BEST for you (because we are smarter)." Just leave the decision to us!!! Grab a beet and let the fun begin......RUMBLE.....

Vaughn J
Kearns, UT

The problem is that most people vote based on sound bites, not actually being able to meet and speak to individual candidates. The delegate system works if the elected delegate is responsible and can meet all/most of the candidates that are in contention. Producing two candidate to fight it out in the primary does wast money (Hatch/Lilenquist race)9Swallow/Reyes races). These were both decided by money and those individuals with name recognition and power promoting specific candidates. The fact that Love did not have a primary had both Pro and Cons associated with the 4th district race. A primary may have provided better name recognition, however the money and name recognition of Carl Wimmer may have resulted in his nomination, and we saw how he behaved after losing.

Being a delegate I met with these candidates and made an informed, and the best decision that I could. I supported both Hatch, Sandstorm and Reyes and then Love during the convention and the winners in the primaries. Compared to Swallow, or Wimmer I think these would have been the best candidates from the personal contact and meeting that the delegate system provides.

60% okay unless media attention Needed.

Utah_1
Salt Lake City, UT

If you look at the entire poll, including question 12e, which says that 2/3 of the delegates polled are just fine with the existing 60%.

The 60% threshold to avoid a primary works, allowing a shot of a challenger to eliminate an incumbent and yet requires a challenger to be a strong candidate.

Based on the state gop released stats since 2000 for state wide or congressional races, at 60%, threshold to avoid a primary, 1/2 of contested races went to primary. If at 2/3, 67% of contested races go to a primary and at 70%, 70% of the races go to primary.

Sen. Hatch just barely missed eliminating Dan Liljenquist by hitting just under the 60%, and Jason Chaffetz just missed eliminating Chris Cannon by hitting just under 60%.

The current system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy or famous. I think that is a good thing.

Utah_1
Salt Lake City, UT

Y2 Analytics is a newly formed survey research and data analysis group consisting of a partnership between Dave Hansen, Quin Monson, and Kelly Patterson.

Dave Hansen is part of the "Count My Vote" group. That should be mention in the article.

David
Centerville, UT

Perhaps the message isn't being received. This discussion on changing the caucus system is not occurring because the current caucus system doesn't produce good candidates, or work well in selecting delegates. I believe the main point behind the effort to change the caucus system is to address the current, abysmal, voter participation rates. Utah, which is community and family focused, has a terrible voter participation record.

It is believed that the caucus system removes voters from participating in the selection of GOP candidates to a certain extent. I have heard the arguments that citizens just need to attend their caucus meetings. That may be true to a certain point. However, there are obstacles that make it difficult to attend these meetings: work requirements, children, youth games/concerts/activities, etc.

If the current caucus system could extend the period of participation it may help resolve this participation issue. Otherwise, the effort to change or eliminate the current system should continue. It would be wise for GOP leaders to change it up.

With low voter participation, it is more likely that "extremist" delegates gain a spot at convention. Utah needs higher participation.

Utah_1
Salt Lake City, UT

David, There is no reason to believe that changing the caucus/convention system will increase voter turnout and it will certainly not increase participation. Utah did try going with a different system many years ago and our turnout dropped.

Stats show that Utah keeps getting more voters and more voters coming to the polls. What is happening is it isn't happening as fast as the number of people moving into the state. That is a totally different issue and doesn't mean we should dramatically change our system.

One of the principles of those wanting to gut the neighborhood election caucus meeting and convention system we have in Utah, was this: " A system that provides inherent advantages to those who are incumbent, wealthy or famous is not acceptable."

The problem is their proposals would do exactly that.

The Caucus System in Utah is the best way to make sure grass roots movements can work over large amounts of money. It is the only way someone with $100,000 can go against someone with $2,000,000 in election funds.

The current system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy or famous. I think that is a good thing.

to comment

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