State GOP convention to consider changes to caucus system

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    April 20, 2013 5:12 a.m.

    I think they should disband these caucuses and the conventions as unconstitutional and infringing on the rights of people to seek an office and voters to choose their representatives by vote.

    No trash talk about continuity of government because the continuity of fraud is fraud and the continuity of corruption is corruption and the continuity of graft, theft, corporate and lobbyist greed is ditto.

    You only get change and honest government with revolving representation to prevent the establishment of a corrupt government by stopping the rich from continuing their revolving crimes and controls with conventions and unconstitutional caucus selection system.

    Its time to end career government, its dangerous and not constitutional government.

  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 19, 2013 12:45 p.m.

    JWB, 70% would not have helped Sen. Bennett. He was not in the top 2 coming out of convention. In fact the more moderate Tim Bridgewater was selected by 57% of the delegates in the last round. Mike Lee managed to get 43% and make it to a primary. Sen. Bennett endorsed Tim Bridgewater during the primary, but with voters ticked at TARP and ObamaCare, they went with Mike Lee.

    Sen. Hatch just barely missed eliminating Dan Liljenquist by hitting just under 60% and Jason Chaffetz just missed eliminating Chris Cannon by hitting just under 60%. Both races went to primaries. The 60% line works fine. Raising it decreases the chance of eliminating an incumbent.

    The current system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy or famous. I think that is a good thing.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    April 19, 2013 10:29 a.m.

    The Republican Big Wigs want primaries so that their hand picked candidates, like Bennett, can get re-elected. Well, it worked out so well for Bennett, didn't it? The primary went fine for Hatch.

    I remember when we dropped the threshold to 60% to keep from having primaries. The threshold was even lower than that for a time.

    Having primaries is not helpful to the party. We should not encourage them. If a guy like Bennett loses in the convention, so be it. I'm going to the convention and voting against the proposal. The Big Wigs should quit their crying and do what the people ask.

    You can't make people participate in the process. Those that do should be listened to. Even if they are conservative.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    April 19, 2013 8:15 a.m.

    I would picture Senator Mike Lee would not be in favor of changing the percentage to 70 percent. Senator Bennett might have been able to get to a primary and has done that process with foes in 1992 and some experience in 1998 and 2004. The push in 2010 with Senator Lee's forces made it difficult for Senator Bennett to overcome that drive during the 1 day process and many caucus's that happened prior to the convention.

    However, the primary elections in June just don't have much participation and those same delegates would be out there campaigning for the ones that didn't get the 70 percent. The caucus has the most interplay and direct contact and is a good process. I believe Senator Bennett should have been more ready as he knew the Tea-Party type people were out there. Senator Bennett could have done a better job in 18 years of corresponding to people that made written comments to him over those years. Senator Hatch definitely improved his communications after Senator Bennett's defeat. Politicians are strange bedfellows but we have a good system and Senator Lee will learn that he has to work with people, Senators and others, also.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 19, 2013 7:50 a.m.

    dump the caucus, go to a primary.

  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2013 9:13 p.m.

    One of the principles of those wanting to gut the neighborhood election caucus meeting and convention system we have in Utah, was this: " A system that provides inherent advantages to those who are incumbent, wealthy or famous is not acceptable."

    The problem is their proposals would do exactly that.

    The Caucus System in Utah is the best way to make sure grass roots movements can work over large amounts of money. It is the only way someone with $100,000 can go against someone with $2,000,000 in election funds.

    There were about 120,000 republicans in Utah that went to the neighborhood caucus elections in 2012 to elect the 4000 State Delegates. Add to those numbers the democrats and the primary elections. Certainly the municipal elections didn't do any better in voter representation.

    Bypassing the Caucus / Convention System will NOT create more participation. There are 4000 state delegates that spend countless hours vetting candidates to be on the ballot. They are selected by those that attend the neighborhood election caucus meeting. You just have to attend.

    The current system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy or famous. I think that is a good thing.

  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2013 8:44 p.m.

    Based on the party released sheets since 2000 for state wide races or congressional races, At 60%, 47% of contested races went to primary. If at 2/3, 67% of contested races went to primary and at 70%, 70% of the races went to primary. The last 2 numbers do not have to match, but they ended up doing so. They tracked 44 races, 14 of which were not contested for the nominee. I realize it is only 6 or 7 contested races difference, but when you are looking at 30 contested races, a change of 6 is 20%.

    The proposal from the "Count My Vote / Buy My Vote" crowd wasn't just to raise the threshold to avoid a primary. It was to also remove multi-round voting or IRV and send all candidates that hit the lower range to the primary if someone didn't hit the higher range on the only vote. With that proposal, why raise the range at all?

    We have a system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, wealthy or famous. This is a good thing. Let's keep the current system. We can always improve, but we shouldn't gut it.