Richard,The State Republican Central committee didn't make the change
some wanted on Saturday.They couldn't have, as the single proposal was
something already voted down at the convention. What was proposed was a bad
message bill. The myriad of changes and improvement that the state republican
party is willing to make, just don't happen to match the demands of Count
My Vote / Buy My Vote. Since that was voted again, the next proposed changes
will be real. We want 250,000 to come to the neighborhood elections in 2014 and
500,000 in 2016. We want the meeting to remain a meeting. We have a
system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, the wealthy or the famous. This
is a good thing, and should be preserved.The system and the
experience attending the meetings can always be improved, but the “Count
My Vote” initiative isn't the way to do it. Any changes to the system
the political parties use to determine their nominees should be determined by
the political parties, and not by extortion or blackmail.
We have a system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, the wealthy or the
famous. This is a good thing, and should be preserved.The
Neighborhood Election and 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.We want neighbors discussing the best candidates and finding
ways to improve this state and the nation. If the system is changed, we would be
dropping off votes, but not meeting and discussing candidates and issues. That
is what is wrong with Washington, D.C. They don’t listen to each other in
a meeting. They watch from their offices. We need to change that, not perpetuate
The right attempts to purge the tea party radical right. That would be the
"Orrin Hatch is a liberal" segment.
one vote,We already have a "bypass" system, filing as an
unaffiliated candidate. A candidate can go straight to the general election
ballot. Someone who doesn't think they can win if vetted by average
citizens asking one on one questions can still run and spend their money. Why
should they be a political party nominee if they are going to bypass their
political party?At only one time for 10 years in Utah’s
history did the state depart from the Neighborhood Election, Caucus and
Convention System. In 1937, a powerful democratic state senator convinced enough
of the legislature to switch to an open primary. He had had two losses, a US
Senate race and also for governor, because the majority of the convention
delegates disagreed with his legislative voting record. But he was well known
and had money.Many at the time felt like an open primary was his
ticket to the governorship, and he did win. But the change in the system only
lasted for a decade. After public and media disillusionment, and even worse
voter turnout, Utah restored the Caucus and Convention System. Why go back?
Utah 1 must be a delegate who is worried about losing his power, you go back to
how a Democrat won in the 30's?Sad how bad the republicans
gerrymander the districts constantly and then complain that a democrat got
elected in the 30's because the state got rid of caucuses briefly.
I cannot trust any system that is set up with the idea that the people cannot be
trusted to vote directly, and thus their more "enlightened" neighbors
should take it upon themselves to choose for them. The caucus system is bad,
and it favors the well-connected and wealthy. I think it's hilarious that
delegates somehow believe they are immune to the type of influence money can
The Republican party is now dominated by right-wing extremists, and their office
holders know it. Therefore, they will continue to pander to the crazies until
the primary election system is changed. It's time for rational people to
step up and change it.
Utah_1's ubiquitous posts in the comment threads of every DN article
relating to the relative merits, or lack thereof, of the caucus/convention
system in Utah are a microcosm example of what is wrong with the
caucus/convention system. Just as Utah_1's comments dominate these threads
(a practice known as "astroturfing"), the less-moderate/more-extreme
zealots often dominate the caucus meetings. Among the politically-active, the
fringe elements tend to be disproportionately represented, relative to their
percentage of the voting public as a whole. They are also more likely to have a
predetermined agenda, versus objectively evaluating candidates and representing
their precincts; consequently, they are also more likely to "pack" the
caucus meetings to ensure their agendas are implemented.Caucuses are
no guarantee that the playing-field won't be slanted toward wealthy
candidates, either. A candidate with a large war chest can make a pretty big
splash in the caucuses and convention by funding an extensive and polished
grassroots campaign.Rather than zealously defending an antiquated
system, the brightest political minds should collaborate to take the best from
the various alternatives to craft a candidate selection system that enfranchises
the greatest number of voters.
It's a question of whether we want to remain a democratic republic or
whether we want some other form of government. Right now, the caucus system
follows the concept of democratic republic perfectly. It requires us to elect
delegates who do the hard work of "vetting" candidates. The incumbants
don't want to be "vetted". Some don't want the public to see
that their campaign promises were never fulfilled. Some don't want the
public to see how they voted.If taking one evening every two years
is too great a price to pay for freedom, then I have serious concerns about
those citizens who want to make demands but refuse to do their duty.There are a few people who cannot attend a caucus meeting because of their
work schedule. They should be accomodated by making it possible for them to
assign a member of their precinct to be their proxy when voting takes place. When a group can raise $500,000 to push through a change that insures
that incumbants will always appear on the ballot, we should be very suspicious
about those who back that change and those who pay for that change.
@ J ThompsonAllowing two candidates through the caucus and into the
primary is a far cry from removing freedom. Get a grip on the hyperbole. I
think the author here made some excellent suggestions that should be taken
seriously. I particularly like the idea of allowing the top two finishers from
each party into the primary.
The other development was last Saturday’s decision by the Republican State
Central Committee once again to oppose reform of the caucus-convention
system.QUOTEI thought the "Count My Money"
initiative was to ABOLISH the caucus sytem, not to reform it. Tell me if I am
mistaken but it seems that this piece is more than a bit sloppy.
The Caucus system had its chance. It gave us Mike Lee. Nuff said.
Richard, You would do well to put your primary focus on your own
party. The corruption within that system, as practiced by party officers is
legendary. Certainly you have heard the stories.
And the motive of the couple of people behind Count my Vote is what? We must
change because it will be good for us and because they raised a half a million
dollars, probably their own money, we must do things their way.
"His opinions do not necessarily reflect those of BYU." So what are the
views of BYU and its sponsor? Is there an interest in having a wider base and
net rather than effectively excluding those who might color outside the lines?