Claudio. I totally agree with you. The only ones supporting the caucus system
is the tea party. They packed the caucus with anti Bennett delegates and
managed to elect Lee. If Lee and Bennett had been on the primary ballot
Bennett would have won by a comfortable margin and the tea party knew that. Lee
has openly admitted he is totally indebted to the tea party and will do and say
anything to keep their support. Anyone who believes delegates are elected to
study the issues and elect the best candidate is delusional. Nine out of ten
delegates already have their minds made up prior to the caucus. I know I have
been one of them. I attended my caucus with one intention, vote for Bennett.
We are a Republic not a democracy. The caucus system is the best example of
that Republic at work, where we elect our closest friends and neighbors to study
out the candidates in hours of meetings. This ensures that we are electing the
best candidates instead of just the richest or the highest name recognition.
Also I have personally witnessed in primaries times where people switch to
Republican to throw the vote, and then switch back to Democrat afterwards. This
is allowing Democrats to choose candidates instead of Republicans. Everyone I
know from other states are envious of our caucus system, because its much harder
Bennett wasn't defeated because of a Primary so going to the primary
isn't going to guarantee someone that a group wants to defeat is gone, the
caucus as constituted did that, point blank. Count My Vote people sure had the
worst person be their spokesperson during the convention. It could have been a
winner but the person got up and as soon as I heard the voice, I was against it
as that person got elected due to inside track with the Party upper people and
their glass ceiling concept. That person was incompetent in office and some due
to circumstances of a spouse that brought some of that.Primaries are
what many, many states have and that doesn't guarantee a high moral value
as people don't vote now in Primaries when the Caucus system throws the
candidates to have the other party vote against the one we want. They may lose
the vote for their party but in most cases, it doesn't count anyway. It
gives the Democrats one way to throw the results, almost like being in Chicago.
Thanks for Illinois providing a great President Lincoln and another President
who thrives from Chicago.
Bob Bennet was the better of the 2 and put america before party. hatch had a
record amount of out side money come in to save him. the drug companies and
supplement industry love him. he protects them from laws to protect the public
from poison or accidental death. unregulated industries can do almost anything
they want. like the fragrance industry they put toxins in many products but they
dont have any real rules so you are on your own.
I find it rather disingenuous of the current party leaders who are launching
their own initiative drive with such a similar sounding name. I suspect they
chose the similar name just to confuse the issue to protect their own hold on
power. Chairman Stalin could take lessons from them!
The article says little about the proposed GOP alternative, and is mostly a
rehash of what we already know
I applaud the system that got the entrenched Bob Bennett's defeat.
I was a delegate and I went to nearly every candidate meet and greet. The
primary election process that it seems that everyone wants will result in
inferior candidates. If 10-12 candidates enter from each party then the top two
vote getters could end up with only about 10% of the vote. The current system
results in the potential of the 4000 delegates spending time to know the
candidates and not relying only on 30 second sound bites. In most cases the top
two candidate in a party will end up in a run-off, as occurred in the republican
senate races in 2010 and 2012. If one candidate appears to the delegates to be
the best choice for the party then the expense and time spent on a primary is
eliminated, as occurred with Mia Love in the 4th district.The main
problem with the caucus system is that there is little information about the
individual candidates that are to be vetted in the electorates knowledge base.
Last year it was the difference between Lillenquist and Hatch. The other
candidates didn't enter the discussions at the caucus meeting.I
think most delegates are immune from being bought.
If you honestly believe the wealthy, the corporations, et al don't have the
same power here currently, I really don't know what to tell you. Ignorance
is bliss I suppose.
ClaudioIt isn't trusting the voters. We don't want to turn in to
CT where you have to be rich to run for office. Fair Elections matter. You
really want the system in places like CT or Calif? CT hates theirs. and Calif?
How well is that working. We don't need to provide more power to the
lobbyists and corporations. We already have issues here. No need to make it
Again, if you trust the people, you allow them to vote. The caucus system
attempts to limit the number of voters able to decide who the candidate is.
Anyone who says otherwise is simply being disingenuous. Allowing people to vote
should not be something candidates are afraid of; why run for office if
you're afraid of voting?
@ClaudioChaffetz didn't hit 60% and it went to a primary and Cannon
lost.Tim Bridgewater was selected by 57% of the delegates. Lee
managed to get 43% and make it to a primary. Sen. Bennett endorsed Tim
Bridgewater.Bypassing the Caucus / Convention System will NOT create
more participation. Approx. one out of every 4 or 5 republicans attended their
neighborhood election caucus meeting this last year. One in every three told a
KSL poll they were involved or attending. There are 4000 state delegates and
many more county delegates that spend countless hours vetting candidates to be
on the ballot. They are selected by those that attend the neighborhood caucus
meeting.If you are going to run as a Democratic candidate, you have
to comply with their rules. If you are going to run as a Republican, you have to
comply with their rules. If you want to run and not have those rules, you can
run as an unaffiliated or independent, or run as a 3rd party candidate.
“Count My Vote” is attempting to change all party rules by changing
state laws by initiative, thus bypassing the political parties and the
Let the Republican Party decide how to nominate candidates. Anyone who does not
like the Republican process is free to join any other party, or start one of
their own.Those pushing to gut the current and very successful
system are some of the party "elites" who want to be king makers,the
news media and their advertising departments who stand to make huge profits from
the inevitable blitz of advertising that comes with more primaries, and
incumbents with strong name recognition, but low approval.Remember,
Mike Leavitt got booed at the Republican convention and nearly forced into a
primary. That blow to his large ego certainly has to be factored into why he
supports this. Bob Bennett, dethroned from his "Senator for life"
sinecure at a convention is likewise hardly an impartial analyst.Keep the caucus system- it allows everyone who wants to participate to engage
in the process, and places a lot of burden on people who pay attention and
actually meet with the candidates for in-depth sessions. Keep the
caucus instead of making nominations based on massive advertising and clever
sound bites which might appeal to "low information voters."
The current system obviously protects the incumbent. The only time that's
different is when the extreme right dislikes the far right candidate (as
occurred in the only two significant cases in recent memory: Jason Chaffetz for
Chris Cannon, Mike Lee for Bob Bennett). Somehow, such a minority group is
allowed to dictate Utah politics. Of course, that group believes the caucus
system as is works wonderfully.Another possible reason for low voter
turnout that you failed to mention; everyone already knows what the result will
be. The guy/gal with the R next to their name wins. Utah's youth vote at
a higher rate than their peers nationally, so that isn't as big a concern.
The one-party domination is.If you truly believe most people believe
your way, you would have no problem with a primary election with every candidate
from your party on the ballot. People are more likely to go vote when they have
12 hours to do so, rather than having to attend a 1-2 hour caucus meeting during
a weekday, in the state with the highest population of any state under 18. The
rest of the country figured this out. Why can't Utah?
Our only problem with our voter turnout is that it has not kept up with the
state's 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. Some of that are those moving in and not understanding our system. The Caucus System in Utah is the best way to make sure a grass roots
process 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. We have a
system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, wealthy or famous. This is a good
thing.Neighbors discussing the best candidates and finding ways to
improve this state and nation.That is being proposed to be removed
from the neighborhood caucus meeting. Dropping off our votes but not discussing.
That is what is wrong with Washington DC. They don't listen to each other
in a meeting. They watch from their offices. We need to change that not follow
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.There were about 120,000 republicans in Utah that went to the neighborhood
caucus elections in 2012 to elect the 4000 State Delegates. Add to those numbers
the democrats and the primary elections. Certainly the municipal elections
didn't do any better in voter representation.Bypassing the
Caucus / Convention System will NOT create more participation. There are 4000
state delegates that spend countless hours vetting candidates to be on the
ballot. They are selected by those that attend the neighborhood election caucus
meeting. You just have to attend.The current system does not protect
the incumbent, wealthy or famous. I think that is a good thing.