Caucus was designed for republics

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 18, 2013 2:52 p.m.

    If your main criticism of the convention is that it got rid of Cannon and Bennett... then I gotta say, that indicates that the Convention isn't ALL bad.


    You realize that we currently have party primaries already right?

    I mean some people act like they don't get to vote in the primary (evidently they have never bothered to be involved enough to even vote in their primary).

    You want to replace the convention with a primary... for people who don't even know that we already have primary elections... seems pointless to me.

    In the most recent municipal primary election my neighborhood got 6% turn out. But you think doing away with the neighborhood caucuses and the convention (which only determine the top-2 who will be in the primary) are too corruptible... But you assume turning it over to this 6% that are involved enough to know we already have primaries, and motivated enough to actually SHOW UP at their Primary Elections. I suspect it's probably the same people motivated enough to bother to show up at their caucus meetings (so the outcome is going to be about the same).

  • Chad S Lorton, VA
    Nov. 17, 2013 7:44 a.m.

    Got a problem with who gets elected? Go to your neighborhood meeting and make your voice heard. It doesn't get any more American than elections at the neighborhood level. Lazy Utahns who just want to show up on election day and vote for "their guy" have no excuses if they don't do what it takes to get "their guy" to the ballot.

  • Brer Rabbit Spanish Fork, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 11:26 a.m.

    The system seemed good until the Utah grass roots republicans went to their neighborhood caucus meetings in 2010 and intentionally elected delegates that said that they would not vote for Sen Bennett.The Count My Vote republican elite are still upset that a senator in whom they had invested millions of $$$ could be so easily tossed out.

    A lot of conservative republicans also would have liked to dismiss Sen Hatch at the last convention, but Hatch had learned from Bennett not to take the convention for granted. With a strong effort and millions of $$$ he was able to convince enough more the moderate republicans to attend the caucus meetings (attendance was over 5 times higher than normal) and get elected as delegates. Then due to a weak republican opposition candidate Hatch became the republican nominee and easily re-elected at the general election.

    The elimination of Sen. Bennett and the re-election of Sen Hatch demonstrates that the system works, even for the wealthy elite, and also the grass roots republicans when they have their minds made up.

  • jcbrad Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 8:34 a.m.

    I've been a state delegate three times. I respectfully disagree with this author's conclusion. What we are really talking about here is avoiding the ridiculous circumstances where a popular senator that has an easy re-election coming, gets drummed out by outside big money gaming the caucus system in favor of a farther right ideologue. Fighting the reforms is really about the far rights grip and control of the caucus system and not about some fair minded vetting.

  • gopconder Draper, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 10:21 p.m.

    The process has to be good whether or not your candidate makes it. If I like or hate Mike Lee is not really the point. I am not a fan of Pres. Obama but that doesn't mean I want to change the rules. Next time the rules may hurt me.

    Senator Bob Bennett and his campaign manager (his son I believe) met with the GOP executive committee as many of candidates do early in the process. I told him flat out "with all due respect senator I think you are in trouble" There were a lot of folks upset about government bailouts. From my point of view the campaign did not do what they needed to do to get convention support.

    I know Senator Bennett truly believed his position as a matter of principle was the right thing. After I asked him if he had it to do over would he do it the same way. He said he would.

    If you did not come to the caucus then stop complaining about the party and make your choice in the General Election where your vote does always count. Its kind of sour grapes from my perspective.
    Dan Conder

  • E Sam Provo, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 8:58 p.m.

    So your argument is that caucuses are good because they gave us . . . Jason Chaffetz?

  • owlmaster2 Kaysville, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 7:56 p.m.

    Caucus's allow the hijacking of and election by a minority group or organization.
    Senator Bennett lost in the Republican, Tea Party Convention with a vote with numbers less than a high school election for student body president. The same is true with Congressman Chris Cannon had the same fate.
    Anyone that knows how the Caucus system works can overload a meeting with supporters and win the delegate positions and and then hijack the convention.
    It happens with Democrats as well as the Republican Tea Party.
    It's time to do away with a minority of individuals having the ability to hijack a convention and unseat a popular elected official with a high school number of votes.
    Change, or in better terms, correct the voting system in Utah. Bring us into the real world.

    Nov. 15, 2013 1:31 p.m.

    We should be thankful for the caucus system because it allows for the easier removal of representatives. Since term limits are not going to be an option, we need to keep it relatively easy to remove someone from office. The rich elites lobbying for the Count My Vote idea are the ones upset that Bennett was removed from office by common citizens.

    It used to be that ordinary citizens would serve in politics for a while then retire to let someone else serve. Career politicians lose sight of what it is like to be ordinary citizens, and get to used to the power of their office.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Nov. 15, 2013 8:21 a.m.

    If the case against a primary system is that it's politicizing the political process, that's about as weak an argument as I can imagine.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 8:12 a.m.

    Re: ". . . removing one of the key vetting components makes it easier for big money and a catchy phrase to game the system."

    Which is exactly the goal of the big-money backers of the Buy My Vote initiative.

    These big-money backers have come to believe Utahns are ignorant enough to buy into their disingenuous, nonsensical arguments, and that they really can buy off enough of us to enable their cynical coup.

    Here's hoping real Utahns as not as stupid as the Buy My Vote crowd hopes we are.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Nov. 15, 2013 7:09 a.m.

    So all those states that use primaries are not following the republican (small r) model?

  • MikeRidgway 25 years in , UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 6:57 a.m.

    Who needs democratic elections when you can have "Republican" elections?