Count My Vote initiative raises more than $500,000

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 6:31 p.m.

    MemoFromADemo, recognized political parties aren't just private entities. They use public infrastructure for their caucuses and primary elections, receive special recognition on ballots, have a straight-party option at the polls, and receive many other benefits from the government. A party that doesn't want to allow a path for candidates favored by the general public to face their opponents in a primary is perfectly welcome to simply cancel their party registration, rent out spaces rather than use taxpayer-funded locations, and deal with not having any affiliations listed on ballots.

    I'd be pleased to see all parties do that. But since that would bring about a situation where the party's selection of a candidate might have little effect on voters, I don't think the extremists and party insiders would go for it.

    Utah_1, you act pretty sure you know what "the people" want, but at the same time you're terrified of letting them actually show what they really want via ballot. Unless by "it's what the people want" you mean "it's what my pals in the Legislature and the state party Good Ol' Boy network want."

  • MemoFromA Demo SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 5:27 p.m.

    I thought the Democratic and Republican parties were private entities. How is it that a group of wealthy political aspirants can buy their candidacy in the Democrat or Republican parties?

    This spring the state central committees of both major parties, and the delegates at their respective state conventions, voted against the Buy My Vote initiative effort. If Leavitt wants to become a US Senator, but he's afraid he can't garner enough delegate votes at convention, then he's free to form his own party and run. But don't manipulate your way into office. We have enough of those types of weasels in Congress. Its time that party leaders from both the Utah Democratic and Republican parties speak out against this initiative and stand their ground.

  • trgrant Riverton, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 1:42 p.m.

    Count my vote, will limit the voice of the people. It will not expand it. It will lead to the candidate with the most money winning. If we have that we will turn Salt Lake City into Chicago.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 1:15 p.m.

    DN subscriber 2, procur, Utah_1, Linus
    My experience at the caucus was just the opposite. The established insiders had all the pull and to blazes with what the rest of us wanted or said.

    Neither the current system nor the proposed changes do away with the party system. Even in primaries you vote for only candidates from one party, you do not get to mix and match – that only comes in the general election.

  • redshirt007 tranquility base, 00
    Sept. 4, 2013 12:26 p.m.

    My last vote was stolen by republicans that claimed I had requested a provisional ballot when I hadn't.

    They did this to hundreds of thousands of Arizonans and claimed every vote would be counted but it was impossible to count hundreds of thousands of provisional votes individually sealed in manila envelopes in a few hours.

    We now need UN election monitoring like any other 3rd world country.

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    Any initiative that will aid career politicians in their quest for a divine-right hold on public office is anathema to the intent of the Founders. We need citizen government; government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The Count-My-Vote initiative is designed to deliver government of the powerful, by the powerful, and for the powerful. It is certainly not surprising that the Count-My-Vote initiative is supported by "big bucks" to fight for the rich and powerful. A 30 plus year political career is obscene. We were once proud of Uncle Orin for his youthful fight for the right; not anymore. What a shame!

  • Daniel84020 Draper, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 7:33 a.m.

    I don't think it's fair to tout the upside of the caucus system without acknowledging the downsides. Sure, you can win with less money, but that's because you only have to influence a (relative) handful of voters. So the only reason you need less money is because there are fewer people to schmooze, which doesn't seem like an inherently good system either. (And all the delegates I talk to get dinner offers often.)

    Also, I really resent being characterized as a low-information voter. I go to great, above average lengths, to be informed and I am never close to being elected as a delegate--I think because I'm not dogmatic, which is actually a product of being informed.

    All in all, I would like to have a say in the candidates who are chosen. I don't think that's undemocratic. Or an elitist power-grab. (Heaven knows I'm not rich, elite, or powerful, nor do I have close associations with those who are.) I'd just like to vote for the candidates I support most. Seems common sense.

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 4:13 a.m.

    I'm all for a broader range of candidates to be on the ballots, it would kill the single party vote if more people are on the ballot and we would have better elections and better governemnt.

    We have to kill this one box voting, make people take their time and pick individuals instead of party. Eliminating the party vote would be the best thing to happen in government and throw a wrench in all the polls and speculative control groups conjuring misinformation and lies to win an election. Ending the career politician and party powers is also crucial to better government after elections.

    From town hall to Washington we should have more choices that can't manipulate the peoo0ple or the ballot boxes. No more walk in unchallenged candidates either, they must all receive votes from the public.

  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 12:36 a.m.


    I’m not sure if they have half-a-million or a million-and-a-half it will matter, people are still going to want fair elections. They’re still going to want the ability to have incumbents replaced. They’re still going to want people not to have to be rich and famous to get elected.

  • From Ted's Head Orem, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 6:21 p.m.

    Count My Vote!

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 4:01 p.m.

    Ah, the usual caucus shill crowd, repeating the same comments they've made dozens of times before in this forum and the exact same words they're posting at's story. Managing to dominate the conversation through brute repetition.

    DNSub2, the "low information voters" baloney used to try to malign those who show up at primaries is a very transparent power grab. All you're saying is "uneducated people shouldn't vote -- and anybody who disagrees with me is uneducated. So let's disenfranchise everyone whose political opinions differ from mine."

    The caucus system disenfranchises ordinary Utahns and empowers fringe groups from out of state like FreedomWorks. This is true in both parties- the caucus system is helping extremists dominate the state Democratic party too. Nothing short of a secret ballot open to ordinary Utahns will ever be representative of the will of the public.

  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 3:27 p.m.

    DN Subscriber 2,

    Both the GOP and the Democratic party want to make it better and are working to do so.

    This Count My Vote / Buy My Vote group could fix it so we have only one party showing up in the General Elections, in many places just GOP candidates or in some just Democratic candidates.

    I don't want that to happen. I also like the idea that an incumbent could lose. We had quite a few lose in 2012 in the legislature. Many are my friends, but I don't want to get rid of the option. I believe if Count My Vote / Buy My Vote is successful, there will be no way to get rid of incumbents, unless the candidate is rich or famous. That isn't an improvement.

  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 2:25 p.m.

    I am glad Gail Miller is keeping involved. Helping children with reading.

    It is sad she (and others) bought into the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote arguments however. Didn't Chris Cannon have endorsements from Pres. Bush, Mitt Romney and both of the then current US Senators at the time? Jason Chaffetz still won.

    re: Sen. Bennett in 2010. 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.

    You like or don't like Sen. Mike Lee? Well 57% of the delegates didn't pick him to be the nominee. It was during the primary he was selected to be the GOP nominee.

    Limiting? There were over 120,000 voters that participated in the 2012 Neighborhood Caucus election and meeting. The democratic caucus also had record turnout. People want a say on who shows up on the ballot.

  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 2:24 p.m.

    The caucus & 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.

    Our problem with voter turnout is it has not kept up with the population increase. The voter turnout keeps going up but not as fast as the population. Some of that is the younger voters, where Utah has a larger percentage of them and they aren't, as a group, as involved. Also those moving in and not understanding our system.

    If you change the way our Utah primary's work, you could have two republicans in the general election ballot (or two democrats).

    We have a system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, wealthy or famous. This is a good thing.
    Keep Fair Elections in Utah.

    Keep the neighborhood caucus election system.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 1:04 p.m.

    Re: ". . . the group was 'thrilled by the overwhelming, broad-based support' received."


    Real people wouldn't call 30 fat-cat, politically-elite, politically-eager, politically-motivated donors, "broad-based support."

    In fact, real people would call it "using riches to buy power."

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 12:50 p.m.

    The career politicians, moneyed "elites" and media types are digging deep to try to seize power from the people.

    The current system empowers anyone who cares enough to show up at caucuses to meet candidates, study their positions on issues, ask tough questions, and vote accordingly. Such pesky "little people" are not easily swayed by the glib promises of the professionals, or slick advertising, or biased media endorsements.

    The present system is resented by the elites and moneyed interests who much prefer to deal with "low information voters" who are easily manipulated.

    Democracy should never be driven by money, but looks like money may be able to control the nomination process. Too bad.