Published: Friday, May 9 2014 9:55 a.m. MDT
I admit they aren't perfect, but doing away with them is NOT the
solution... make them better.Either way we will have a party primary
(always have, always will, it's the law)... so you don't lose anything
by keeping them. I've never been a delegate, but I've
elected people I trust to represent me at the convention, and question the
candidates... and then I question the delegate (my neighbor) on a frequent
ongoing basis (by email and in person) and I learn a lot (from first-person
interactions, not just glossy TV/radio commercials). It works better for me
I'll make my own choice, I don't need someone else doing it for me,
@RanchHand, Re: "I'll make my own choice, I don't need
someone else doing it for me"...Ummmmm... you get to make your
choice whether we have a convention or not. We already have a Party Primary...
that's where YOU get to make your choice.The 2 people who got
the most votes at convention will be on the ballot, but you can write in anybody
you want...Then you get to make your own decision AGAIN in the
General Election (nope... nobody makes it for you).=======So.... you get 2 votes regardless (vote #1- in the primary, and #2 general
election). That doesn't change IF we have the convention. Nobody's
taking your vote away from you.=======This is the
faux-drama I'm talking about.... when people pretend if you have a caucus
and convention you are taking their right to vote from them, or somebody is
voting for them. That's just not true. You have the same number of
votes with OR without the convention.========IF the
person you wanted came in #3 at convention... does he really have a great chance
to win???If so... write him in.. and prove it!
went to the caucus, had a blast. What fun!I still disagree with the
process.Jewel is now sold because she was one of the privileged few
who actually get to make the decisions.2bits,nope, sorry, you
are incorrect. There is no primary if there is a winner at the convention. no
one gets the choice whether there is a convention or not.
We live in a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY. The caucus system follows the
principles of a REPUBLIC. Some of us understand the difference, but many so
not. I support the caucus system.
@lost,Nope, sorry, this isn't the convention's fault.This doesn't only happen when there is a convention... candidates run
unopposed all the time (whether there's a convention or not). In Utah... WAY more Democrats run "unopposed" than Republicans
(because Democrats have a hard time finding someone who will spend their own
money and run when they know they won't win).Check it out...
you will see that I am right.===The Republican candidate
almost always faces a Primary Campaign... for Democrats a primary challenge is
rare. Jim Matheson only had primary challenger once in his whole career
(because he's a Democrat). ===You claim you
didn't get a primary vote because of the convention... Name the
most recent time a Republican didn't have to face a primary election (for
Congress or Senate).... Matheson has had that luxury almost every time... and
I didn't hear you complaining...Is this partisan grumpiness...
or are you upset at Democrats who run unopposed as well?===The only time you don't get a primary challenge after convention is... if
one candidate gets over 60% support.... (hint... that's rare)Maybe require 80%... That would be a good change.
Since the D News refused to post my first comment, I'll try again...Of course the person who wrote this opinion article likes the caucus
system now. She's now one of the select few who actually has a voice. The
problem with the caucus system is and has been that it gives more power to a
select few. The author said it herself, "Candidates want to know what you
think and seem to really care about your answers. And why not? Delegate votes
can launch someone's political career or crush it."Candidates and elected officials don't listen to their constituents. They
are ONLY interested in the delegates. This is especially true for incumbents
looking to get re-elected. Phoning, writing to, or emailing an elected official
is useless unless you are a delegate who can help them get re-elected.
Of course the rambunctious pro caucus give away my vote crowd loves this system.
It allows them to pack the caucuses, shout down opposition, and cripple our
democracy with a few well-funded and vocal minority voices. What's wrong with a full on democracy? Why should some unaccountable
delegate get to decide for me?It's so odd that those who scream
so much about our constitution seem so intent to drown out the voice of the
majority with this utterly pathetic caucus system.Under the caucus
system we have lost Sen. Bennett and have gained Lee and empowered Hatch. Enough
The Real Maverick. Wrong. Whether you like Sen. Mike Lee or not you
should consider the following. The delegates almost eliminated him at
convention.re: Sen. Bennett in 2010. He was not in the top 2 coming
out of convention. In fact the more moderate of the two, Tim Bridgewater was
selected by 57% of the delegates in the last round of voting by the delegates.
If he had received 60% Tim Bridgewater would have been the party nominee and
Mike Lee would have been eliminated.Sen. Bennett endorsed Tim
Bridgewater during the primary, but with voters ticked at TARP and ObamaCare,
they went with Mike Lee.Sen. Mike Lee was the party nominee after
the primaryThe 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 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 great compromise SB 54 will likely be tossed out in
court. CMV was a failure from the start.
Mike Richards,Yep, a republic, that is why we have the House of
Representatives, which are supposed to be close to the people. The caucus moves
them further away from the people, thwarting the founders’ intent.2bits,I repeat. nope, sorry, you are incorrect. First, you claim I said something which I did not. Usually it's liberals
who misstate their opponents. shame on you. I never said I did not get a
primary vote because of the convention.no one gets the choice
whether there is a convention or not. Does not matter whether a candidate runs
unopposed – there is still a convention.There is no primary if
there is a winner at the convention.Bennett did not have a primary
because Lee beat him in the convention.Check it out, you will see
that I am correctPartisan grumpiness? No, I just want to be able to
have a say in the candidate is going to be.I AM upset at those who
opened the primary (when it happens) to non-party members through the
“compromise”. And it was NOT the CMV folks, it was Bramble who
INSISTED the primary be open.
Re: TallGuy1970: You have unintentionally made a great case for keeping the
caucus system. Many arrogant candidates (especially those with bundles of
money) don’t care what their constituents think. But they DO care what
the DELEGATES think, because, as you quoted, "Delegate votes can launch
someone's political career or crush it." Well, the
delegates represent the constituents, so, in a very real sense the candidates do
care what the constituents think. Without the delegates, these arrogant
candidates wouldn’t care what ANYBODY thinks (look at your own logic), as
long as they have enough money to create enough ads to convince enough people to
vote for them. But the delegates FORCE them to care and to have some sense of
accountability to the people. Also, the delegates are not a
“select few” – thousands of them are chosen across the state.
You can easily run to be one yourself.Jewel has written a great
op-ed here. Congrats.
As someone who was a Capitol Hill staffer on Washington for many years...also as
one who has worked on major campaigns and been a delegate....I can tell you that
elected officials do care about both the delegates and their constituents. They
really care what they think. If they don't, they don't get elected.
That's true pure and simple.EVERYONE has the right to attend
the caucus and either run for delegate or elect a delegate that will represent
his/her views. That's how a republic works--representative government. I
don't really see a problem with our caucus system. It also has the
advantage of vetting candidates so we likely get the best candidate as a nominee
by the time they get to the general.The caucus system has worked
well in Utah for a long time and I don't see any reason to change it.
For 2bits "Name the most recent time a Republican didn't have to face a
primary election (for Congress or Senate)"Answer: This year. None of
the 4 Repub. Congressional candidates are on the June primary election ballot.
All four came out of the caucuses/convention with enough delegate votes to
bypass the June primary. (By the way the same is true for the Democrats.)I
for one am glad to see the caucus only way of nominating candidates gone. Way
too much nepotism. Too few controlling things for everyone else.
PeanutGallery, if you think delegates represent constituents, you're off
your rocker. Time after time polls show caucus delegates are totally out of
touch with rank and file party members.35 delegates are certainly a
select few compared to the 2 MILLION eligible voters in Utah. Why should 0.2% of
eligible voters make the decisions for everybody else?Mike Richards,
so I guess you think we should eliminate all elections? People should be totally
disenfranchised?If you think we aren't a democracy you
don't understand what a democracy is. Of course we're not a unitary
unlimited direct democracy, but we are a democratic republic under any standard
definitions of those terms."Democracy is worth dying for,
because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by
man." - Ronald ReaganIf you think having a small and
unaccountable minority make all the decisions is wise, please read Mosiah 29
esp. v 26. Rather than having a small group of extremists make all our
decisions, we should do our business by the voice of the people. Some think they
can't trust the public, but trust in a "select few" will usually be
I've been a delegate numerous times and enjoy involvement in the political
process, but I am in the camp with those that are not happy with the caucus
system. The far right has been too much in control of the process which
restricts moderate republican views (which most Utahns are). All you had to do
is look at the resolutions passed at the last Republican state convention to see
how far out of touch the delegates are with common sense Utahns. The current
Republican party is no longer my party. Call me an independent.
@Mike Richards - Please elaborate how the caucus system follows the
"rules" of a Republic versus that of a Democracy.
I love the caucus system, it is democracy at the most basic level, true grass
roots. Those that oppose it either do not understand it or oppose it because it
is the method closest to the people despite their dishonesty trying to claim it
isn't. I laugh every single time I hear some person say it is
"elitist" when in fact it is anything but.
'I'm eating my words — Utah's caucus system now has my
vote'Absolutely, in Utah you gotta go along to get along,
right?You can't ignore the power structure, which consists now
of Tea Party Politicians (Koch brothers's employees) and several million
successfully propagandized citizens controlled by the Right Wing Hive mind.The Koch brothers love the Caucus system in Utah that reliably delivers
Tea Party candidates.So fall in line people.
gadzooks, I could swear I wrote 3500 not 35. My typo.Here in Utah
County our county caucus just overthrew the will of the people as shown in
previous elections by ousting our County Commissioner and replacing him with a
supposed "REAL FISCAL CONSERVATIVE," Greg Graves. His sole qualification
was being a schoolteacher who listens to Sean Hannity on the radio.Since the caucus no-primary threshold is absurdly low and everyone figured
running as anything other than a Republican would lose in November, he will be
unopposed on the ballot, and barring a massive write-in campaign he will be the
county commissioner.Turns out this guy who ran on his supposed
superior ability to manage county finances has had multiple bankruptcies and
some interesting misdemeanors. He will be a serious liability to the county.So much for the caucus system's supposed superiority at vetting
candidates.If SB54 had been in effect this year, this would have
gone to a primary, and the general public would not have been so easily
bamboozled as these gullible delegates.
It's kinda fun to watch the usual conservative suspects, usually on the
same side of an issue, eating one another for breakfast. :)
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments