MemoFromADemo, recognized political parties aren't just private entities.
They use public infrastructure for their caucuses and primary elections, receive
special recognition on ballots, have a straight-party option at the polls, and
receive many other benefits from the government. A party that doesn't want
to allow a path for candidates favored by the general public to face their
opponents in a primary is perfectly welcome to simply cancel their party
registration, rent out spaces rather than use taxpayer-funded locations, and
deal with not having any affiliations listed on ballots.I'd be
pleased to see all parties do that. But since that would bring about a situation
where the party's selection of a candidate might have little effect on
voters, I don't think the extremists and party insiders would go for it.Utah_1, you act pretty sure you know what "the people" want, but
at the same time you're terrified of letting them actually show what they
really want via ballot. Unless by "it's what the people want" you
mean "it's what my pals in the Legislature and the state party Good
Ol' Boy network want."
I thought the Democratic and Republican parties were private entities. How is
it that a group of wealthy political aspirants can buy their candidacy in the
Democrat or Republican parties? This spring the state central
committees of both major parties, and the delegates at their respective state
conventions, voted against the Buy My Vote initiative effort. If Leavitt wants
to become a US Senator, but he's afraid he can't garner enough
delegate votes at convention, then he's free to form his own party and run.
But don't manipulate your way into office. We have enough of those types
of weasels in Congress. Its time that party leaders from both the Utah
Democratic and Republican parties speak out against this initiative and stand
Count my vote, will limit the voice of the people. It will not expand it. It
will lead to the candidate with the most money winning. If we have that we will
turn Salt Lake City into Chicago.
DN subscriber 2, procur, Utah_1, LinusMy experience at the caucus was just
the opposite. The established insiders had all the pull and to blazes with what
the rest of us wanted or said.My2cents,Neither the current
system nor the proposed changes do away with the party system. Even in
primaries you vote for only candidates from one party, you do not get to mix and
match – that only comes in the general election.
My last vote was stolen by republicans that claimed I had requested a
provisional ballot when I hadn't.They did this to hundreds of
thousands of Arizonans and claimed every vote would be counted but it was
impossible to count hundreds of thousands of provisional votes individually
sealed in manila envelopes in a few hours.We now need UN election
monitoring like any other 3rd world country.
Any initiative that will aid career politicians in their quest for a
divine-right hold on public office is anathema to the intent of the Founders.
We need citizen government; government of the people, by the people, and for the
people. The Count-My-Vote initiative is designed to deliver government of the
powerful, by the powerful, and for the powerful. It is certainly not surprising
that the Count-My-Vote initiative is supported by "big bucks" to fight
for the rich and powerful. A 30 plus year political career is obscene. We were
once proud of Uncle Orin for his youthful fight for the right; not anymore.
What a shame!
I don't think it's fair to tout the upside of the caucus system
without acknowledging the downsides. Sure, you can win with less money, but
that's because you only have to influence a (relative) handful of voters.
So the only reason you need less money is because there are fewer people to
schmooze, which doesn't seem like an inherently good system either. (And
all the delegates I talk to get dinner offers often.)Also, I really
resent being characterized as a low-information voter. I go to great, above
average lengths, to be informed and I am never close to being elected as a
delegate--I think because I'm not dogmatic, which is actually a product of
being informed. All in all, I would like to have a say in the
candidates who are chosen. I don't think that's undemocratic. Or an
elitist power-grab. (Heaven knows I'm not rich, elite, or powerful, nor do
I have close associations with those who are.) I'd just like to vote for
the candidates I support most. Seems common sense.
I'm all for a broader range of candidates to be on the ballots, it would
kill the single party vote if more people are on the ballot and we would have
better elections and better governemnt. We have to kill this one box
voting, make people take their time and pick individuals instead of party.
Eliminating the party vote would be the best thing to happen in government and
throw a wrench in all the polls and speculative control groups conjuring
misinformation and lies to win an election. Ending the career politician and
party powers is also crucial to better government after elections.From town hall to Washington we should have more choices that can't
manipulate the peoo0ple or the ballot boxes. No more walk in unchallenged
candidates either, they must all receive votes from the public.
Prodicus,I’m not sure if they have half-a-million or a
million-and-a-half it will matter, people are still going to want fair
elections. They’re still going to want the ability to have incumbents
replaced. They’re still going to want people not to have to be rich and
famous to get elected.
Count My Vote!
Ah, the usual caucus shill crowd, repeating the same comments they've made
dozens of times before in this forum and the exact same words they're
posting at KSL.com's story. Managing to dominate the conversation through
brute repetition.DNSub2, the "low information voters"
baloney used to try to malign those who show up at primaries is a very
transparent power grab. All you're saying is "uneducated people
shouldn't vote -- and anybody who disagrees with me is uneducated. So
let's disenfranchise everyone whose political opinions differ from
mine."The caucus system disenfranchises ordinary Utahns and
empowers fringe groups from out of state like FreedomWorks. This is true in both
parties- the caucus system is helping extremists dominate the state Democratic
party too. Nothing short of a secret ballot open to ordinary Utahns will ever be
representative of the will of the public.
DN Subscriber 2,Both the GOP and the Democratic party want to make
it better and are working to do so. This Count My Vote / Buy My Vote
group could fix it so we have only one party showing up in the General
Elections, in many places just GOP candidates or in some just Democratic
candidates. I don't want that to happen. I also like the idea
that an incumbent could lose. We had quite a few lose in 2012 in the
legislature. Many are my friends, but I don't want to get rid of the
option. I believe if Count My Vote / Buy My Vote is successful, there will be no
way to get rid of incumbents, unless the candidate is rich or famous. That
isn't an improvement.
I am glad Gail Miller is keeping involved. Helping children with reading.It is sad she (and others) bought into the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote
arguments however. Didn't Chris Cannon have endorsements from Pres. Bush,
Mitt Romney and both of the then current US Senators at the time? Jason Chaffetz
still won.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. You
like or don't like Sen. Mike Lee? Well 57% of the delegates didn't
pick him to be the nominee. It was during the primary he was selected to be the
GOP nominee. Limiting? There were over 120,000 voters that
participated in the 2012 Neighborhood Caucus election and meeting. The
democratic caucus also had record turnout. People want a say on who shows up on
The caucus & 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.Our problem with voter turnout is it has not kept up with the
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. Also those
moving in and not understanding our system.If you change the way our
Utah primary's work, you could have two republicans in the general election
ballot (or two democrats). We have a system that that does NOT favor
the incumbent, wealthy or famous. This is a good thing. Keep Fair
Elections in Utah. Keep the neighborhood caucus election system.
Re: ". . . the group was 'thrilled by the overwhelming, broad-based
support' received."Hmmmmm.Real people
wouldn't call 30 fat-cat, politically-elite, politically-eager,
politically-motivated donors, "broad-based support."In fact,
real people would call it "using riches to buy power."
The career politicians, moneyed "elites" and media types are digging
deep to try to seize power from the people. The current system
empowers anyone who cares enough to show up at caucuses to meet candidates,
study their positions on issues, ask tough questions, and vote accordingly.
Such pesky "little people" are not easily swayed by the glib promises of
the professionals, or slick advertising, or biased media endorsements. The present system is resented by the elites and moneyed interests who
much prefer to deal with "low information voters" who are easily
manipulated.Democracy should never be driven by money, but looks
like money may be able to control the nomination process. Too bad.