Panel: Delegates wanted to leave Senator Orrin Hatch's fate up to voters

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    April 26, 2012 6:29 a.m.

    To lost in DC 1:24 p.m. 4/25

    I agree with all you said in your post. I hope you are not offended by me so saying, as we so often disagree.


    Not in the slightest. I agree with a fair amount of what you say too.

    We both have a right to our opinions, and I enjoy exchanging opinions (to a lawyer that's called "arguing" - no connotation of acrimony intended). I enjoy a good argument. Arguing with those who think differently gives me good insight, and avenues of thought to explore. I learn things, and that's good.

  • catharsis SLC, UT
    April 25, 2012 11:26 p.m.

    As a contributor to this article and a state delegate, I didn't anticipate my thoughts being misconstrued to mean that I think the caucus/delegate system is messed up or ineffective or flawed. Actually, quite the contrary. I think the delegate system is a reflection of our representative system at large and it promotes informed voting. I think the general public at large would be hard pressed to get the in-depth look at the candidates that the delegates receive. For those who want a popular vote do you also want every piece of legislation to be decided by a popular vote rather than our congressmen & women? We elect representatives and grant them a level of trust to do our bidding.

    If you came out of caucus feeling like your views weren't represented then you either need to make sure there are more like minded individuals there or accept that perhaps your views aren't supported by a majority of people that attend caucus.

  • danaslc Kearns, UT
    April 25, 2012 5:57 p.m.

    We are just left to vote on Liberal Republican's once again. I hope the Delegates are happy and I wish they would have done their homework.

  • carpoolmom SOUTH JORDAN, Salt Lake
    April 25, 2012 4:41 p.m.

    Another headline by the Deseret News to persuade voters that Hatch is the man. I don't believe a delegate would not use their power to vote how they want. Everyone I talked to voted for Hatch much to my dismay. I don't understand why all voters can't be informed. I wasn't a delegate but my country means enough to me that I read the paper and stay informed. It hasn't taken any great effort on my part to do so. It's so sad that money can buy elections in this day an age where we have the internet to inform us of what our Senators and Congressman are doing and voting on.I would just add that it is too bad that campaign finance laws are so lax that it allows such discrepancies to exist so that one person gets to spread his lies so much so that people believe him. I like the France’s campaign laws for that reason. The candidates there can’t advertise and are supposedly given equal tv time by the news. Look at Hatch's record it isn't good and has made America bankrupt.

  • sjgf South Jordan, UT
    April 25, 2012 3:37 p.m.

    @Johnny Triumph

    "What a shame, now misinformed voters will force Hatch out of office, at a time when he can finally be of value to our State."

    I think that you'll find that your concerns are unwarranted. The beauty of a primary is that most people only vote based on sound bites.

    Hatch, as almost all incumbents, has a large war chest to outspend his opponent. Since Hatch was allowed into a primary, he has already won the election. All he has to do is spend his money to send out lots of sound bites that tell people how wonderful he is and how terrible his opponent is, and the voters will vote for him in droves.

  • sjgf South Jordan, UT
    April 25, 2012 3:26 p.m.

    I'm sure that a few delegates specifically threw their vote. But I am also sure that there wasn't any kind of organized effort to avoid a primary. As a delegate, who spoke with other delegates, I have a pretty good sense of this.

    But let me expand on the difference between the caucus/convention and a primary:

    In a primary, voters cast their votes almost exclusively based on a few sound bites. They don't have a chance to really get to know the candidates, so they can be easily swayed by advertising. Candidates are elected based on sound bites rather than a larger view of how the candidates will represent us.

    In contrast, in the caucus/convention system, the delegates get a chance to really intimately get to know the candidates. For the most part, they vote based on learning how the candidate would represent them, not just on a couple of sound bites.

    If we can just learn to trust our precinct delegates to represent us, just as we have to trust our elected representatives, we'll realize that the caucus/convention system is FAR superior to a primary in selecting our political leaders.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    April 25, 2012 3:07 p.m.

    I think the system is good. The primary comes around for candidates where it is too close to call, such as we saw with Hatch. If the delegates can represent that there is strong enough support to avoid a primary, then great. If they can't, then it goes back to the voters to make sure that they don't mess up (like Obama did with the health care). The primary is a safety net for the caucus.

  • Just Thinking Out Loud Paradise/usa, 00
    April 25, 2012 1:40 p.m.

    "Let's be real" said:

    "The caucus system is set up so that they go to the convention and vote the wishes of the people they are representing. Now we have someone who said that they decided to let the voters do the job? The voters did the job when they voted you as delegate."

    My caucus elected me as a delegate specifically because I had not made up my mind and they trusted me to make a good decision when I got more information at the convention. I think this is often the case. 2/3rds of our caucus wanted hatch, 1/3 weren't sure. I think our caucus was well represented by the three delegtates they chose.

  • Johnny Triumph American Fork, UT
    April 25, 2012 1:33 p.m.

    What a shame, now misinformed voters will force Hatch out of office, at a time when he can finally be of value to our State. He's build credibility and tenure in Washington and now we'll throw that away. What a shame to relegate Utah to the back of the pack again. And if this is really a problem then why in the world wouldn't we want someone there who can actually help our state vs a newbie who will have little ability to do anything.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 25, 2012 1:24 p.m.

    I agree with all you said in your post. I hope you are not offended by me so saying, as we so often disagree.

    LDS Lib,
    I hope you realize BOTH parties operate under the caucus system. And one of the letters to the editor this morning was from a first time delegate who said they did NOT like the caucus system.

    I asked a party operative what one could do to push away from the causus to preferably a primary system, or at least an adjustment to the caucus system where the delegates are allocated according to the support the candidates recieve at the caucus - I got no response.

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    April 25, 2012 12:48 p.m.

    I appreciate so much the delegates allowing me to vote AGAINST Hatch.

    I only wish they would have done the same thing with Herbert.

    Now, I'll be voting for Peter Cook since there's NO WAY I would vote for Herbert after I saw what he did regarding illegal immigrant trespassers.

    Its time for a change in the Governors slot anyway. The I-15 corridor payoff, the DABC debacle, the UHP trooper who KEEPS her job after falsifying reports; ALL these things tell me we badly need a change in executive leadership.

    I'm HOPING Peter Cooke WILL take his oath of office seriously regarding lawbreakers present in the state of Utah. Too many years of one party Governorships makes for a WHOLE LOT of department heads that need changing!

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    April 25, 2012 10:39 a.m.

    To Let's be real | 8:28 a.m.

    The caucus delegates did exactly what they were supposed to do (and this is a BIG part why I don't like the caucus system). They are not supposed to do what the people attending the caucus want them to do. They are supposed to review all the alternatives, and select the one thy think is best. They did do their jobs.

    My preference is for a primary election. As I have said numerous times, at least with a primary election the voters know that their votes will go where they want the votes to go.

  • Let's be real Salt Lake City, UT
    April 25, 2012 8:28 a.m.

    Although I am in no way a liberal, I believe in what LDS Liberal said above. The caucus system is set up so that they go to the convention and vote the wishes of the people they are representing. Now we have someone who said that they decided to let the voters do the job? The voters did the job when they voted you as delegate. What is it going to be? Caucus or primary? Make a decision and let's go with it. Don't make your own decisions on what you think you should do which in this case is not what are in the by-laws of the convention. We attended meetings to elect you to do your job, not go there and do what you want. We can get that kind of treatment with our folks in Washington, D.C. Please do not be dishonest with our system. Change it, do what it says, or get out.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 25, 2012 7:13 a.m.

    So even the delegates think the system is messed up and the voters should be the ones to decide who represents them. Interesting, no?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 24, 2012 9:07 p.m.

    Oh, you mean like....

    Having a PRIMARY?

    I guess the delgates don't like/trust their own caucus system.