Well done, Utahns, for representing at state Democrat and Republican caucuses

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Jash Clearfield, UT
    March 22, 2012 12:49 p.m.

    I was initially excited about the level of attendance at my caucus but soon was apalled by the level of ignorance prevalent among the attendees. Very few of the attendees were aware of how many contenders there were for the state offices. Even fewer could name half of them.

    If you are going to participate please do your duty as a voter to properly research the candidates running for office.

    Hopefully the delegates will give due diligance to all candidates running and have an open mind. If the caucus were the state convention I think Hatch would have the republican nomination in the bag.

  • Alex H. Provo, UT
    March 21, 2012 8:57 a.m.

    I attended the Republican caucus, and joined with the large percentage of attendees who were totally lost. The biggest problem, though, was not the convoluted process hostile to new attendees. The biggest problem was the lack of any transparency. After researching the state and Utah County Republican websites, I still had no idea the attorney general would be elected. Nor did I know anything about over 90% of the candidates. Apparently that didn't matter, though, because the delegates are apparently not bound to vote with their constituents (e.g., to support or oppose Sen. Hatch). Also, more needs to be done for the rising generation. Most in my precinct were students, so it was sad that no care was taken until the end of the meeting to help us understand the fact that our insurance policies could change with us attending, etc.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 20, 2012 2:04 p.m.

    @ Mike Richards

    A Party is not really a “Republic” or truly “Representative” simply because “Republicans” are members of that party.

    Seriously Mike – your secret distain for having to eat crow and once again vote for Orrin Hatch is beginning to show.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    March 20, 2012 1:08 p.m.


    Is "Democrat" a noun or is "Democratic" an adjective? A "red" house is an adjective that modifies the word, "house". "Red" clairifies the word, "house". "Red" by itself means almost nothing, but "red house" means something.

    Should we use the words, "Democratic Democrats" when describing "Democrats"? Are they not "Democrats" unless we refer to them as "Democratic"?

    Words have meaning. Parts of speech have meaning. Words used out of context mean very little. Would calling it the Party of the "Democrats" be more accurate than simply saying "Democrat Party?

    A Party is not "Democratic" simply because "Democrats" are members of that party. A Party is "Democratic" when the principles of "Democracy" are practiced by its members. The "Democrat Party" is not necessarily "Democratic".

  • tenx Santa Clara, UT
    March 20, 2012 8:21 a.m.

    @1 aggie. Actually it should be Deemolib. Any party that can "deem" a bill passed must be so far left that democratic has lost its meaning.

  • tenx Santa Clara, UT
    March 20, 2012 7:57 a.m.

    It was almost as though someone or some "organization" had directed the larger crowd to follow Orin. If there is no primary I will have to vote Democrat. 36 years is enough, but 42 is ridiculous.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 19, 2012 11:38 p.m.

    It is the "DemocratIc" Party, not the "Democrat" Party. The ignorance of the DN and it's readers is astounding.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    March 19, 2012 4:32 p.m.

    @12.44 p.m.

    I would like to confirm these comments as I had largely the same experience myself at my local precinct.

    You might feasibly, justifiably have a preferred candidate but at Convention, as a nominee, you should take the opportunity to question all candidates without having your mind made up in advance; it would show intelligence, fairness and respect for all those in you neighborhood to vet all competing for this Senate seat. After all: He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." (Proverbs 18:13)

    Usually, at least in my experience, a nominee might express a preference but still say that he would consider all the candidates thoughtfully before finally committing himself. Perhaps the problem, judging by the literature that has deluged us recently, is that it may have seemed to some nominees that the contest actually contained only Hatch and Lindquist and they hadn't heard of the others. The precinct may have lacked informative flyers for the other candidates.

    We are a people who are, indeed, committed to the nation's founding document and "Supreme Law of the Land" and should surely make that our most guiding principle in elections.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    March 19, 2012 4:24 p.m.

    High attendance means nothing unless those attending have an idea about what they are doing.

    We had a very high attendance in our precinct. Most of the people thought that they were at a Church meeting. They voted for the people who had had significant church callings.

    Church callings should never disqualify anyone from elected office, but it certainly should not be the basis of voting for someone for civic responsibility.

    The two delegates who will represent our precinct at the nominating convention were not aware that the Bill of Rights prohibits Senator Hatch and his friends from taking away our right to be told why we are being accused, or why we are not being allowed to have council, or why we are not allowed a trial.

    When the ignorance of basic, fundamental Constitutional principles ruled at the Caucus meeting, why do we even bother to hold an election? Why don't we just appoint the most popular church leader to represent us?

    Everyone has the right to vote his conscience, but when ignorance rules, what does that vote represent?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 19, 2012 12:52 p.m.


    I attended the Republican, Democrat, and Constitution Party Caucuses.
    The GOP was by far the most skewed, biased, and heavy handed of them all.

    The only ones praising the glory of the caucus system only saw one side of it.
    Not much by way of a fair, or un-biased opinion.

    It was clearly evident how the very minority and extremist Tea-Party easily high-jacked the elephant in the room GOP last election cycle.

  • kibitzer Magna, UT
    March 19, 2012 12:44 p.m.

    This year's caucus was the saddest ever.
    Sure we had more people and they had nothing to say.
    They just wanted to save Orrin Hatch's hide.

    All of the nominees said they would vote for Hatch
    although they were obviously ignorant of all
    the other eight candidates running in that race.

    I agree this probably representative of the opinion
    of the generality of the folks here in Utah
    and the ignorance, apathy and hostility to the
    Constitution of the United States
    That this opinion represents.
    And their rebellion against the teachings of
    Ezra Taft Benson and every president of their
    Church that ever spoke on the subject of the

    I am ashamed of my fellow Utahns.

  • Kevin Cromar Sandy, Utah
    March 19, 2012 12:08 p.m.

    I attended the caucuses of both political parties. The reported "large caucus turnout" this year is deceptive.  There was a major change in the boundaries of the voter districts from two years ago giving this turnout illusion.  My neighborhood had two voter districts before.  Many voter districts were collapsed into one very large voter district.  This change in voter district boundaries means there are fewer county and state delegates from our area, making it less inclusive and more manipulated. The new state Republican rules are more manipulative of the process, beginning with the new convoluted balloting process for delegates.  Attendees at the Republican caucuses were not allowed to speak to the group about their opinions on the candidates; only ask questions of delegate nominees.  The opposite was true for the Democratic caucuses.  All of the races are highly contested, yet only 4000 people out of 2 million people will decide who we will be allowed to vote for. The undemoratic, manipulated Utah caucus system needs to be dumped for direct primaries.

  • Social Mod Fiscal Con West Jordan, UT
    March 19, 2012 11:52 a.m.

    @educated_conservative. You are correct, the article does incorrectly state that we live in a democracy.
    The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.
    A government of the masses.
    Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
    Results in mobocracy.
    Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
    Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
    Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
    Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
    Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. Based on a Constitution or By-Laws.
    A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
    Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
    Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
    Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    March 19, 2012 11:39 a.m.

    @ Social Mod

    In my precinct it was over-whelming support for Hatch. So don't count him out just yet.

  • Social Mod Fiscal Con West Jordan, UT
    March 19, 2012 11:13 a.m.

    In my precinct we had over 90 attendees (last year was 15 and in previous years it was closer to 7). Out of the 8 State Delegate nominees, 6 were Tea-Party and anti-hatch, 1 was anti Tea Party and very pro Hatch and the last was just pro-hatch. In the first round of voting the anti Tea-Party nominee took over 50% of the vote. I have heard similiar reports from other precincts. Sounds like better attendance will have a moderating effect on the Utah GOP this year.

  • educated_conservative Springville, UT
    March 19, 2012 11:02 a.m.

    This editorial describes our government in terms that sound awfully similar to a "democracy." But I was assured by the legislature last year that the U.S.A. is most definitely NOT a democracy. I guess the U.S.A. can be both a democracy AND a republic, because they most definitely are not mutually exclusive.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    March 19, 2012 6:33 a.m.

    The price of non extremist representation is universal particapation.

  • Economist Salt Lake City, UT
    March 19, 2012 5:55 a.m.

    Such a temporary surge in participation is only a short-term feel good fix to a systemically broken system...

    we must abolish the caucuses...