Utefan60,I had to chuckle as you described how your caucus meeting
was overrun with people who didn't represent the majority. But obviously
they WERE the majority (that bothered to attend).You can pretend
that what YOU want is what the majority wants. But it's easy to get that
assumption wrong.It's like me insisting that the majority of
Americans wanted Romney for President.... but the ballot boxes were overrun by
people who didn't want what the majority wanted. (hint... if more of them
voted then they ARE the majority).---I really don't
care if we switch to a pure popularity contest. But I think there are 2 very
important things.#1. I would like so see a primary where we get more
than 15% turnout first.#2. We must have some method to narrow each
contest to 2 options BEFORE the Primary (convention or a pre-primary primary).
Otherwise the vote gets split and diluted. We need to come out of the primary
with the winner getting a "majority" vote (meaning more than 50%) to
have any momentum leading into the General Election. With 10 candidates the
winner may enter the general election with just 11% support from his own party.
I think it is very fair to have a vote. I was excluded from my neighborhood
caucus and it was over run with people who didn't represent the majority of
the people who live here. It was shameless. I was my vote to count.
Illustration...Say we have 10 candidates. 9 agree on something
that's very popular with most Utahns. One is in the minority. IF the
unpopular guy can get just 10%... he wins! Even though 90% wanted the other
position but had their votes split 9 ways.Does that make sense?In other words, the most popular candidates or positions don't win.
In fact the least popular position (shared only by one or a few candidates) has
the advantage.That happened in my caucus meeting. Most people in
the room wanted Lillianquist (from their comments). So likewise most people
who volunteered wanted Lillianquist . Only one volunteer and a small group of
people favored Hatch (including me). So everybody who wanted Hatch voted for
the one guy. The rest split their votes between 9 guys. So imagine the shock
when the Hatch supporter won.They SHOULD have had an initial vote to
get it to 2 and THEN have the final vote.You have to get it to 2
final options to have a fair election (which is what we have now).The only function of the convention is to get us to that 2 finalists for the
primary. With a mass ballot... the vote gets split.
If we do away with the caucus meetings and the party convention... what is the
only facility left to get your campaign message out and our only source of
information on the candidates? (hint... TV and News Papers).Let's see... does the DMN, KSL, etc, stand to gain from pushing this
agenda? (hint... you bet, they get a LOT of money from campaigns to run their
adds).When News papers and TV add brokers are the only source for
candidates to get their message out there to win an all candidates are on the
ballot primary... and they are now the ONLY source of information on the
candidates, do they not have a monopoly on this huge source of income from the
candidates? And can they control the election outcome by who they chose to
cover (and not cover)?Do we want that?---The
biggest problem I see with the "everybody's on the primary ballot"
approach instead of having 2 candidates to choose from is... the vote gets
split so many different ways. I'll illustrate what I'm talking about
but I'm out of words.
The desperation of the far right is coming clear. They're terrified of
losing their ability to select the candidates for the rest of us.@liberty4me;I wouldn't trust you or the majority in this
state to "vet the candidates" for me (just look at Mike Lee for
example), I can do it pretty well myself, thank you very much.
Re: "procura -- as usual, you have it all stuck in reverse."Well, forward, reverse, whatever you want to call it -- Big Money is not
supporting Buy My Vote because they believe it'll dilute their political
power.Mindless liberals are so used to opposing whatever real people
want, they're hurting themselves, supporting Buy My Vote.There
simply is no stretch of reason or logic that can support the disingenuous bilge
being peddled by Big Money -- that removing the nominating process one step
further away from real people, removing effective public scrutiny, and
consigning candidate selection to smoke-filled back rooms -- will somehow
benefit real Utahns.Regardless of how you feel about the caucus
process, at least they're conducted in the open.Buy My Vote
will assure we will never again know how Big Money selects our candidates for
The fairest thing is to have folks who are elected by their neighborhoods
research the candidates as their neighbors would if they had been elected to do
so. We trust them because we know them and their values. If CMV were in place
very few would really dig in and find out who is the best candidate consequently
those who vote would go down and those who did vote would in large part be
voting what they heard on the last ad which is why the money is such a big
player. Why do you think those who want this have a lot of money?
Step 1: get unfettered campaign finance to be recognized as "free
speech" so that plutocrats can speak with a megaphone while the rest of us
have to use whispers.Step 2: tell us that to protect us from the
very plutocrats to whom we've just given so much power, insist on using a
closed nomination process rather than opening it up to a direct vote via the
ballot box, where every voter has a voice. Brilliant.
procura -- as usual, you have it all stuck in reverse.
Re: " . . . curb the effects of the Citizens United decision rather than
limit the number of people who select candidates."The best
action to "curb" Citizens United would be to preserve our caucus system,
denying big money interests influence out of proportion to their numbers.That action also has the benefit of being constitutional.
I could not find the path to follow the money on this one.But since
it doesn’t really matter I don’t care. To actually
bring voters out to vote needs for them to actually have some effect on their
government. Primaries will not do much if anything to give power to the vote.
Only when we do away with political parties power to select
candidates for us will our vote actually mean anything.
Another gullible soul has swallowed the anti big money argument put forth by the
very people who were elected by big money.Strangely curious how they
are able to twist and twiggle the facts to make it seem that what they used to
place them into office is bad, bad, bad.We simply NEED Count My
Vote. It's one step toward fair elections.Oh, did I say a bad
word? My Tea Party friends don't like that word -- fair.
Does anyone see the relationship between snow coming next week and Governor
Herbert eating at Crown Burger on Friday?Wait... No one does?Interesting.So I can't put 2 completely unrelated items
together and declare a relationship? How odd.Count My Vote and
Swallow have nothing in common. If you think buying off politicians is happening
ONLY WITH Count My Vote then you haven't been paying attention to the
Caucus system... Or John Swallow (which was happening despite being in a Caucus
The tea party fiasco ended the caucus system and the conservative political
movement. No more small core of spinners trying to bring down government.
I cannot see any relationship between Mr. Swallow's resignation and the
Count My Vote initiative. Am I missing something?
I kinda thought that votes wasn't counted. I guess now it's obvious.
If big money is the concern, then perhaps the solution is to curb the effects of
the Citizens United decision rather than limit the number of people who select
Count My Vote law will cost taxpayers millions, $1 Million the first year and
almost that every 2 years, with about 1/2 of the unfunded mandate being picked
up by the less populous counties, the ones that the same proposed law will cause
to be flyover places where the candidates and elected officials won't come
anymore.The sponsors of Count My Vote loved the current system when
the turnout to the neighborhood caucus elections meetings (GOP) was about
25,000, but when it exceeded 50,000 and 100,000, they no longer want that system
because they no longer have the power. They don't tell you that the same
delegates, proposed to be elected by closer to 10,000 attendees will still pick
nominees such as the replacement for Spencer Cox.They claim more
people will be able to vote. A large percentage of voters will not affiliate to
vote in the GOP primary election and those same people will not be able to vote
in a "GOP" direct primary under Count My Vote. They will get to pay
more as Count My Vote makes sure the parties will not be picking up the tab they
currently do, it will be the taxpayers, unaffiliated or not
John Swallow was not able to secure the GOP nominee at convention, he won in a
primary We already have a large percentage of contested races go to
primary. If we have more primaries, we are apt to have more last minute attack
pieces and more ethics problems. There will also be a need for more political
donations raised for more expensive races. We don't need to provide more
power to the lobbyists.The lobbyists don't have the money, they
provide donations from companies and Pacs. Those groups typically do not donate
to anyone that isn't an incumbent or at least a nominee for a party. The
only people that can afford to run in a primary and compete in that market are
rich or famous, unless someone hires some questionable political consultants. We
are seeing what happens to those people in the news currently. We do not need
more scandals. The exception is created by our caucus and convention
system. I know elected officials that turn down donations. Many don't get
them because their votes don't match the groups goals. We have many good
and honest elected officials. The system we have helps