Mitt has a voice of reason. That is why 55% of people who voted for President
Obama this past election would not have voted for him now. They regret their
vote. Mitt please run in 2016 we need your experience to get America moving
again in the right direction.
Strider 303: "Political parties are private entities whose members choose
their candidates for the general public election, in November as they see fit.
No outside help is needed."Which only goes to prove my point.
Political parties are extra-constitutional at best. Why do we permit them so
IMO we have a group of politicians (Mitt and Mike) who are currently on the
outside, looking in. Mitt can't seem to retire from the public stage. He
doesn't live here, except for a vacation now and then. Why is he butting
in? Hasn't he a company to rescue to occupy his time?Mike
appears to be longing for the hallowed halls of the Senate. I perceive he
awaits a change in the caucus system to accept a "draft" to replace that
renegade Senator Lee. He well knows the caucus system would expose him and his
record to close scrutiny and the mild mannered ex-governor/secretary facade
could be marred. Maybe he could write a book or lecture at a University.Political parties are private entities whose members choose their
candidates for the general public election, in November as they see fit. No
outside help is needed.The Republican Party leadership is
progressive - mild and the base is conservative - a lot. The capos in charge
are frustrated that the rank and file aren't "showing respect".
Coming after a series of arguments for and against CMV, I suspect this comment
won't get much attention. But the truth of the matter is: neither retention
of the current system or adoption of CMV will retain or give the power back to
the people. The problem is in the parties. They have manipulated the primary
election/caucus/convention system to the point where the parties have all the
power. Supreme court cases notwithstanding, the only system that works is a
blanket primary system where voters can vote for the candidate--ANY
candidate--without regard to party affiliation. I say that if either of the
political parties want the control to select their own slate of candidates for
the general election, let them use whatever system they want--at PARTY expense,
not use of PUBLIC FUNDS or government employees. Their candidates could then run
against candidates of the PEOPLE'S choice, with concomitant risks.
I am not from Utah or Massachussets, but I wish that Mr. Romney would just fade
into obscurity with the rest of those who have lost presidential elections. The
less he keeps foisting himself on the American people, the less misconceptions
about Mormonism I have to clear up with my neighbors. People often think that
Romney's positions are the Mormon positions, and I find most of his
Although I have supported both Mike Leavitt and Mitt Romney in the past, I must
respectfully disagree with them on this issue. The "count my vote"
initiative does not allow more people to choose who the candidates will be, it
reduces the number who will be involved in that process. By the time a primary
is held, the decision will have already been made about who will be allowed by
the powers that be to run for office, and the campaign will have been run by
those with the most money to put into it. This is a case of those who consider
themselves to be the leaders of the parties against the rank and file of the
parties making decisions in the caucuses. I have participated in caucuses in
Utah and in Washington state, and have voted in primaries in California, and
find the Utah caucus system to be the most responsive to those who show up at
the caucuses. And the people who show up at the caucuses are generally more
knowledgeable about the issues than are those who just show up to vote in the
People want to vote for candidates not delagates. Who has time to spend hours at
a caucus to elect a delagate who may or may not vote for the candidate you want.
That's very discouraging to participation for those of us with busy less
flexible jobs and family responibilities.. Let me spend three hours learning
about candidates positions and arguments at the place of my convienience (at
home if I like) and one minute voting. The masses don't vote in primaries.
It will be those that care enough to vote and the politicians should trust them.
People are very busy with jobs and families and it shouldn't be just those
with a lot of time on their hands that think they should vote for the rest of
us. SB 54 is offensive. If politicians want to help the electorate, set up a
central website, perhaps "UTAHVOTES.com" where potential candidates can
put forth their veiws and arguments but absolutely change to a direct primary
system. Why is Utah in the stone age?"When government
suppresses the people it is not in the people's interest but for their own
want for power"
"Well, if the caucus system is what brought us Jason and Mike, I gotta go
with anything different."Like the primaries that gave us Nancy
Pelosi, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Sharron Angle,
Barbara Boxer, etc?Someone you don't like got elected - we
gotta change the system!
Well, if the caucus system is what brought us Jason and Mike, I gotta go with
Re: "A republic has its citizens electing officials to represent them. The
caucus system has people electing neighborhood representatives, who then go to
the larger meetings to elect the next layer of representatives."And if the candidates are chosen by primaries instead of caucuses we will
still be a republic, we will still have a representative form of government.The fact that we elect people to represent us in the government in no
way implies or requires that we must choose representatives to choose the
representatives to choose the representatives to choose the candidates for
public office, instead of simply choosing the candidates ourselves in a primary
election. It is not one of the requirements of a republic that there be layer
after layer after layer of representatives until you finally get down to the
actual voters. There is nothing anti-republican in eliminating the
caucus-middlemen and having the voters select the candidates for public office
themselves in primary elections, just as they elect their representatives in
Congress themselves in congressional elections.
Reasons to support a caucus-convention-primary system over a staright
primary:1) Field of candidates is narrowed down to two. Under Count
My Vote, you could have, in theory, hundreds of candidates running for an
office. There would be no runoff. A candidate would win with far less than 50%
of the vote.2) Money from special interests is less important.
Delegates - respected members of the community - get to meet with candidates and
ask them questions directly. It is not about silly commercials, like the stupid
Bennett commericials from 2004 where he made fun of his looks. It's about
real issues.3) It gives you two shots at holding an incumbent
accountable. Incumbents always have the advantage, especially in terms of money.
They need to be held to a higher standard to get re-elected.4)
Because the rich people oppose it. There's a reason the rich people in this
state want to to get rid of the caucus-convention system, and it has NOTHING to
do with your best interests. They are not doing this out of charity - they are
doing it for greed.
So you know where I'm coming from, I am routinely unable to attend my
caucus meeting.That said, anyone who wants to kill the caucus system
and go to a straight primary is a fool. There is a reason the rich people in
this state are trying to change to a primary: because it would increase the
importance of money on the system. Bob Bennett had $4 million in his campaign
account from special interests - money he'd spent six years raising - which
did him no good after he lost at the convention. Why would you want to get rid
of a system that downplays the value of money?Finally, there is no
reason to think a straight primary will give us better candidates. For those of
you who hate Mike Lee, remember: Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Rand
Paul, Ted Cruz and Todd Akin were all chosen via primaries, not caucuses. Pick a
non-Utah politician you hate, left or right, and the odds are that he or she was
chosen by a primary, not a caucus.
Well said TandJ! You're spot on about big money buying our votes in order
to get a liberal progressive candidate on the republican ballot. Mitt Romney sees a direct primary as an efficient way to poll the people.
Sadly, all that education and business acumen lost on the simple fact that BUY
MY VOTE will give us less good candidates not more. We'll have one choice
between a liberal progressive democrat and a liberal progressive republican. And
we'll have big money buying all our votes. The people will be set out to
pasture. And the only candidate contact with the public will be on TV or fund
raising dinners.Say no to Buy MY VOTE. Its bad, bad, bad for Utah.
To "Esquire" you are wrong. Even with the caucus system votors still
choose their representatives. The caucus system is more in line with the US
Constitution than the Count My Vote plan is. Under the Constitution each state
is to have a Republican form of government. A Republic is NOT a Democracy. A
republic has its citizens electing officials to represent them. The caucus
system has people electing neighborhood representatives, who then go to the
larger meetings to elect the next layer of representatives.You vote
for your representative, no different than voting for a city council member or
local government official.
(continuation) But, at the actual convention, the chosen representative, after
casting his or her first vote for the chosen candidate, sees that the chosen
candidate simply does not have sufficient support to at least come in with
sufficient votes to force a primary election in which the chosen candidate will
be on the primary ballot. In that case, the chosen representative has the
benefit of the knowledge that he or she obtained at the caucus to chose the best
candidate remaining, thus giving his neighbors back home a second chance to vote
for a candidate. If fortunately, the chosen candidate is voted at the party
convention to be the actual candidate or forced into a primary election, those
caucus goes who voted to chose to support that candidate at the caucus did
indeed vote for a candidate.
Sherlock Holmes makes the unsupported statement:"The caucus supporters
cannot frame an answer to a simple question: Why not vote on the
candidates instead of the delegates? It is time to remove the
middlemen/women"Well Sherlock, here is a very good answer. The
caucus system is indeed voting for a candidate. But, it is not based upon big
money television ads to base that choice. The caucus goer has studied the merits
not based on thirty second television ads but upon his or her reasoned and
studied out ideas about the merits of the candidates. The caucus goer then
discusses this reasoned opinion with others at the caucus, and in some instances
is influenced by his or her neighbors of a better candidate. Now, they choose a
representative to pursue the best interests of that chosen candidate. That
representative is obligated to vote for the chosen candidate at least on the
first round of voting at the party convention. (to be continued)
"Be sure to plan so that you can attend your caucus this year and see what
it's all about! "This is another problem with the caucus
system. Some people are just not able to attend (work, young children, sick
kids). In a primary election you would have a day to figure out when you could
go cast a vote instead of being required to attend at a specific time for 2 or
more hours. The caucus system is not practical for everyone.
Hey Pablo Sanchez . . . I can't understand how you proponents of the
caucus system can claim that pressure groups have less influence there than
they would in a conventional primary election.Pressure groups with
money and influence have even more influence in a caucus system.It's easier and cheaper to pressure and bribe individual delegates
rather than the whole population of Republican voters. And the means used to
sway those delegates' opinions are much less transparent to the voter.
Joan Watson, you are correct in the last statement you made. You said, "We
are either individuals with self directed functioning brains, or we are sheep
led to and fro by the interests of others."Unfortunately you think
that the sheep go to the caucuses. They do not, they wait for the thirty-second
television ad and then make a very big decision that is representative of those
expensive thirty-second television ads that are indeed made by the interest of
others. The individuals with self directed functioning brains take it upon
themselves to study in depth the issues. And, those issues are unfortunately not
discussed very well in those ads. Money produces those ads, and those who listen
to and look at such ads are the sheep. Those with self directed functioning
brains will indeed attend a local meeting (a caucus)as part of using their self
directed functioning brain. Joan, it is those sheep that are led to and fro by
the interest of others and do not have the time or desire to use their self
directed functioning brain that accept the propaganda given out by those having
money for expensive television ads.
The caucus supporters cannot frame an answer to a simple question: Why not vote on the candidates instead of the delegates? It is time to
remove the middlemen/women
From the posts here Looks like a bunch of people are confused about impact of
primaries and the purchase of a place on the ballot by caucuses.Working people
have to as implied,"work" and caucuses take time out of that essential
activity leaving most folks out of the political process because they are
somewhere else and cannot afford the time,effort and expense to
".politic".In Utah where there is really only one party what
difference does it make? Plenty because if the Teaparty infests and uses their
typical insiduous ways say goodbye to sensible candidates,discourse and
Republicans who are becoming as scarce as Ardvarks.Rinos are far more American
that Cruz and others who seek the Presidency but would starve women and
children,force women to bear the children of rapists or seprated husbands
while subsidizing billion dollar corporations and plunging us into deficit with
tax cuts for only the wealthy one percent and churches that politic incessantly.
Can someone explain to me why the far right does not want a system where the
voters can choose, but instead want a system that is controlled by insiders? I
would really like to know. Is it they hate any sort of change no matter what,
or is it because they are afraid the general population is more moderate than
they are. It has to be one or the other.
"the real thinking and political savvy individuals that function in the
caucus system." It is really hard to believe you really said
this. I suggest you change the mirrors on your walls.
I find it funny that the people who are for the Count My Vote idea keep saying
that their votes don't count in the caucus meetings. The fact is that they
do. What they are really saying is that the results of the caucus meeting are
not what they like.Since they don't like the outcome, they are
going to change the system to something that is easier to manipulate to their
He rules Utah.
Mitt you might want to read it before you agree with your buddy Mike. Its a bad
proposal and I like the concept of branding it "buy my vote" which is
the truer moniker for the idea.
coleman51 said: ...In the caucuses, only the extreme votes count. They are in no
way representative of the general public. In my own district, extreme
libertarians have taken over the vote and as such, our delegates don't
represent my views. Someone who is conservative is not represented unless he
holds extreme views.Amen. Caucuses would seem a great
idea and should be, but there is still a power structure and a
'hierarchy' that means some people get THEIR way at the expense of
others with just as much right.
Your vote does count, it always has.The biggest lie I have seen
perpetuated is that the caucus system does not count their vote. For
those of you who are buying into this lie, allow me to share the process of the
Caucus System:- The Caucus is not the actual election. It is merely
the staging ground to select a candidate to run.- All of us have the
opportunity to elect a neighborhood representative. This individual could be you
if you would like. - That individual spends hours and hours learning
of the candidates for your specific party. - The delegates vote on
for the candidate they believe will best represent the people.-
Then, that candidate runs in the actual election and everyone votes and every
vote is counted. The Caucus is not the election.- So, anyone can
run for office, regardless of money and backing. If they have great ideas, they
have a chance to be the party representative to run in the actual election,
which is not the Caucus convention.- Without the Caucus Convention,
it will be those with the most money and runs the most ads and buys the most
ksampow responding to LinusLinus: "The convention/caucus system
excludes no one!"Actually it does exclude many because jobs,
illness, emergency, family needs, or military service keep them from coming. If
you can not make it at the scheduled time you are shut out of the process. I am
a precinct chair and as such am one of those who have a voice in what is
decided, but I know many are unfairly excluded by the current system. It is
arrogant to think that that primary voters (which would surely include current
caucus attenders) will be swayed by big spenders, while caucus attenders and
convention delegates are above being influenced by big spenders. At every
convention I have attended (and I have been to MANY of them) candidates are
giving away flags, food, and other freebies to win delegates' votes.Identifies part of what is wrong with caucuses. There is no
less finagling there than any other part of politics. People who
would be GREAT at being endorsed, nominated & elected often have no stomach
for all the drama & futility. They have seen what a hammering good people
take at the hands of those with a lust for power.
Few DN readers are as suspicious as I am about Mitt Romney... the politician.I don't see him reaching for some type of political advantage with
this opinion...if in fact this is his opinion.
Count My Vote is exactly that, a change so that MY vote gets counted. I
don't understand the need to stick with the caucus system. I have
participated in this system for years. Family members have been delegates. It is
flawed. My vote never counts. I don't get to vote for who represents my
party. All I get to vote for is a delegate. Who knows what that delegate will do
once they get to the convention.Remove the middle man and let me
vote. I'm smart enough I don't need a delegate doing that for me. I
know who I want to vote for.
"don of the wasatch" I'm not the least intimidated by my caucus.
My caucus contains a couple of big names in the Republican party that I'm
sure you'd recognize. I say what I want to say, (yes, ALL Republicans
believe in free speech), at the end of the night I know for a fact that there
are no hard feelings. Sometimes people don't agree with me, but
thats' o.k. AT LEAST I got to say it.That doesn't happen in a
direct primary. The winner of a direct primary will be the candidate with the
most money and who has the backing of just a few party insiders.People on these comment boards are always "railing" about BIG MONEY in
politics. The caucus system, while it doesn't solve all of that problem,
at least helps.
Mitt, I thought you better than this. I guess the others were right, and you are
part of the the Old Dog Rino group. A sad day for republicans. Count My Vote is
just a cover for "Let's get rid of the hick vote", they don't
know who to vote for anyway. I guess you believe only the rich and famous should
be elected then. Talk to some real voters in the State before you make such a
If you really want our vote to count? Ask most people what they think of the
"Electoral College". That system was created to insure the
"right people" get elected. A popular vote is required for a
constitutional-democracy to elect public officials by the will of the people.Then and only then will each and every vote truly have the power it
deserves.And of course an end to legalized bribery which violates
the very principles we hold most dear. Equality, fairness, impartiality, which
is protected by law by the vote.Bribery cannot be made lawful. Our current
reality is flawed and without use of the facts available to all of its US
citizen members. Political contributions, by corporations under corporate
mission laws, can only be committing bribery by intent. Otherwise
shareholder's money could be used for fraud/embezzlement and be justified
under law, which it cannot. Ask any Utah State Bar member if this logic is
correct? BRIBERY: The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of
something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in
the discharge of his or her public or legal duties...unlawful by constitutional
Equality Under All Laws..
@mcdugall -- "funding fathers", a Freudian slip? The caucus system
gives ordinary people a much more active role in the political process than
would ever be possible under direct primary. Be sure to plan so that you can
attend your caucus this year and see what it's all about! Democrats meet
on March 18; Republicans on March 20.
The caucus system has failed the majority of Republican voters in this state.
The majority of Republicans are not Tea Party extremists, but Reagan-type
Republicans. In the past caucus elections, Reagan Republicans have been
basically pushed out of participation because they were they were labeled as
“RINO’s” – people who were not worthy to be called
Republicans – they were not Tea Partiers. A real primary election where
everybody’s voice counts is the only fair direction to go – and no
compromised bill that would still prevent every Republican’s vote from
counting. Politics is politics, and those who want to keep the caucus system
and prevent the primary voting system know they would be losing huge political
power if they can’t maintain their control through intimidation with the
caucus system. But it’s time to let the true Republican majority dictate
the course of Utah Republican policies.
I love Mitt, but he is wrong here... Everyone can (and should) get
involved... If this is taken away, only those with Mitt's money
will be sent to Washington...Bad news for the rest of us...
It is simple. Without the Caucus system, those with the most cash win. If this is what you want, then pass the initiative. Then, sit back
and enjoy the fruits of your labors:Politicians without substance, with a
whole lot of favors owed.
It used to be that citizens of this country voted according to their own
informed decision of who would be best for President of the United States or any
other government office. One does not need, nor should need, a
'caucus' with its own political agenda and persuasion to decide for
one.We are either individuals with self directed functioning brains, or we
are sheep led to and fro by the interests of others.
It comes as no surprise. Mitt, bless his heart, is still an elitist through and
through. I'm not quite wealthy enough, Republican enough, and prejudiced
enough to be a Mitt-admirer; I'm just solvent, conservative and
I have to give credit where credit is due -- Romney got something right for
I agree with Mitt Romney. I believe that the caucus system in Utah should go to
the rubbish heap. In the caucuses, only the extreme votes count. They are in no
way representative of the general public. In my own district, extreme
libertarians have taken over the vote and as such, our delegates don't
represent my views. Someone who is conservative is not represented unless he
holds extreme views. I support the "count my vote" initiative and the
direct primary system in Utah.
During the last presidential election cycle liberal media pundits suggested that
Mitt was far too liberal to govern conservatively. Now, his support for COUNT MY
VOTE will essentially allow made-for-television progressive liberal Republican
candidates cover by hiding their progressive agenda behind glossy million dollar
TV campaigns. Conservatism is not a fundamental part of Governor
Romney's core belief system. Intellectualism is. He's a pragmatist.
And pragmatism, in the political world is anything that will lead to more
votes.Count My Vote is a terrible idea for Utah. It will result in a
general election choice between a progressive liberal democrat and a progressive
liberal republican. Count My Vote is sheer political folly.Why
can't we let a progressive liberal democrat candidate face off against a
conservative republican and may the best governing philosophy win? Count My Vote
will turn Utah into another state where only progressive ideas are found at the
ballot box while conservative ideas didn't get enough TV time or big out of
state money. Say No to Count My Vote!
The caucus system does NOT exclude anybody - everybody is invited and should
attend the caucus meetings. It is the best system by far. I agree with
DNSubscriber that the other side is the "Buy my vote" group. Those with
money want to get rid of the caucus system because that is the only way that
those without a lot of money can be heard.
I've participated in caucus meetings for many years. The thing I like about
them is it is such a grassroots opportunity. At the meetings that are open to
all in the district, people are chosen to represent our district that we know
and have confidence in. They speak for us. It is one place that I truly feel we
can know what we are standing for. Each person nominated tells us their take on
the current affairs and we can choose someone who has our ideals. When I say
"our" I mean the majority vote in the caucus. The caucus gives us the
opportunity to feel like we can really participate.
'Count My Vote' is, in reality, 'Buy My Vote'. Utahns,
Beware! Just because it might have celebrity endorsement doesn't make it
right for us.
Of course he backs the "buy my vote" initiative. He's as much of a
party insider as Leavitt and the others who don't think they should have to
answer to the people."Politicians SHOULD be able to serve as
long as they want to" is the mantra of the "buy my vote" initiative.
Its' more than a little inconvenient to have to come back and explain your
position to your constituents at the end of your term.Who wants
that?I respect (and voted) for Romney, but he's wrong on this
Glad to see those that want to stifle thoughts and opinions because someone lost
an election. Help me here, what does that have to do with anything. pappy, just
exactly what have you done in the political process to give you the right to
tell someone that has to shut up? I think the real losers are those that
couldn't carry Mitt's water and yet have the audacity to tell him to
be silent.....only in America
We have a beautiful gift in the caucus system. It is politics on an extreme
grass roots level. Anyone, rich or poor can run for office in Utah because of
the caucus system. WE choose our neighborhood delegates, whom we know and can
talk to. We can unseat an untrustworthy elected official. If we go to standard
Primary system, then only people with wealth and position will be able to run
for office. It is like the 17th Amendment, where we changed to having Senators
elected by popular vote instead of being elected by State Legislators. We undid
a wonderful protection that the wise founders had placed in our Constitution. It
made it so that the Senators don't have to have the State's best
interests at heart. It was to be a check and balance that would protect
State's rights. We undid it and lost that protection. Count My Vote will do
the same thing. Please be fully informed before signing away freedoms that we
may not even be aware that we have.
If our government is really to be "of the people, by the people and for the
people" then the selection process for candidates and the location for
political discourse MUST be in the homes and neighborhoods of the people. This
is a thinly-disguised power grab by big-money special interests. Nothing More.
I have always lived in a state with primary elections. I want my vote to count.
Heaven knows, I don't always get my way. But at least my vote was
considered important. I hope Utah will count the votes on this issue and find
out what the rank and file citizens think.If a politician is doing a good job
for the people who elected him, he should never have to worry about reelection.
In fact, it is a privilege to represent the constituents and reelection should
never be the focus of a politician's labors. He should do the right and
moral thing in each situation, then let the election chips fall where they may.
Well of course he endorsed Count my Vote. Its the right thing to do! The
State's political system, particularly the Republican party, is being held
hostage by a minority fringe group.@Mark in Montana - Well said!
@ Say No to BO, you say the current system gave us Mike Lee and Jason Chaffetz.
Sounds like an excellent reason to support Gov. Leavitt.That being
said, is Romney a Utahn? If not, why should his opinion matter any more than
Chris Christie or Jerry Brown?
The caucus system has contributed mightily to the current infestation of
government-hating Tea Partiers in positions of authority. Romney demonstrates
that the Republican Party is salvageable. The GOP may be a huge mahine filled
with defective parts, but it can be rebuilt and put back on the right track to
actually help America and NOT incessantly hinder progress and harm the citizens
it is supposed to help. As it stands, the Republican Party is
literally America's Enemy Number One. And that must change.
Linus: "The convention/caucus system excludes no one!"Actually it does exclude many because jobs, illness, emergency, family needs,
or military service keep them from coming. If you can not make it at the
scheduled time you are shut out of the process. I am a precinct chair and as
such am one of those who have a voice in what is decided, but I know many are
unfairly excluded by the current system. It is arrogant to think that that
primary voters (which would surely include current caucus attenders) will be
swayed by big spenders, while caucus attenders and convention delegates are
above being influenced by big spenders. At every convention I have attended (and
I have been to MANY of them) candidates are giving away flags, food, and other
freebies to win delegates' votes.
The standard primary system only allows the super wealthy to run for office.
For the super wealthy, they have the millions necessary from the get-go to fund
their message and create their brand. Branding only sticks with constant heavy
marketing of a specific message.The remainder of the 98% of
citizens, that lack the immense amount of wealth, have little to no chance of
competing as they are suffocated by the messages paid for by their super wealthy
competitors (don't believe me, look at the careers and wealth of all of
today's Congressmen/women prior to being elected into office). Both this
system mentioned and the competing caucus system ultimately are decided in the
general election by popular vote. Therefore, the name "Count My Vote"
is misleading in of itself as it infers voter suppression. In fact,
the phrase "Count My Vote" should be used by the caucus system as a tag
line. Simply said, the only votes not being counted are those who would like to
run for office, but can't, simply because they don't have the deep
pockets to compete with the super wealthy.
@American Patriot - I believe the funding fathers were in favor of giving the
masses a vote. The caucus system explicitly removes the majority of people from
the entire processes. It's time to allow more people to take an active role
in the entire process.
What a surprise!Two powerful elite career politician
"moderates" who have alienated their party's base are in favor of a
scheme that ensures they, and their pals, with big bucks for advertising, and
lots of name recognition can continue in office.They want
"increased voter participation" but only if the "voters" are
basically ignorant except for a few snippets of propaganda fed to them by slick
and expensive advertising. It worked to get Obama elected, so Republicans
should select our candidates that way too?Many people are (easily)
confused into thinking that somehow voters will not be able to vote if caucuses
continue. They are wrong! Caucuses help narrow the field, and if no clear
consensus nominee emerges, there are still primary elections. And, of course,
at the general election EVERYONE gets a chance to vote to pick from among the
candidates of ALL the parties.Don't fall for the "Buy my
vote" propaganda and hype. The caucuses are much better for our state.
It's interesting to try and consider something like this. On the one hand,
I understand the cons of "Count My Vote" a lot more than the pros. On
the other, Br. Romney is possibly the most sound and well-reasoning of any
politician I've ever known, continuing to be vindicated in his concerns and
claims to-date, particularly regarding the White House. I put a lot of trust in
what he says, assuming such communications attributed to him in this matter are
I remember hearing Doug Wright describe how he and his staff wouldn't even
publicly interview Jason Chaffetz in the run-up to the convention because
Chaffetz was polling so low (KSL likes obscure candidates to remain obscure,
apparently). When Wright talks about it, you can still hear in his voice a tone
of outrage that this upstart--UPSTART!!!--got the Republican nomination by
making an end run around Utah's major press outlets who, if they'd had
their druthers, would have made darned sure that Chaffetz' candidacy never
saw the light of day.Chaffetz' successful dark-horse run--which
was accomplished by making his case directly to locally elected delegates,
rather than toadying to the state's current power structure for
endorsements and funding--really tells me all I need to know about the virtues
of the current system and the motives of the "[dis]Count My Vote"
initiative. The people who think they can control the money and the narrative
will tend to support the initiative; those who feel their only option is a bona
fide grass-roots effort will tend to oppose it.
Mitt's opposed to the caucus system because it's given the party a
long string of ineffective, partisan politicans.
Yorkshire expresses exactly what is wrong with the direct primary system. It
sounds so simple . . . Just go vote, be done, and have my vote count. Your duty
as voter is so much more than that. It takes time and effort to become
sufficiently informed to cast a responsible vote. CMV is supported by the big
money big names that will run politics (even more than they already do) is the
caucus system is eliminated. Your voted does count in the caucus. Under a direct
primary, who really benefits? Radio and television stations, newspapers,
billboard companies, and the few with money to buy access to their advertising.
Yes we should have each voted counted. I feel that in a caucus system even if
you show up and make a point that the people that does get to vote can totally
put aside you positions and vote the way they want. If we all get to vote that
that opinion is not bush asided. Sure you can say that only those
that are up to date of issues should be allowed to voted, but how do you
determine who is up to date on the issues. The cascus systems sounds to much
like a elistist club that thinks they know better then the rest of us and we
should just follow their ever so great wisdom. Let the people vote that is the
Ameican way, at least the America I was taught to love and respect in the
All you need to understand about Count My Vote is that money drives the
primaries and grit drives the caucuses. That's how we got Mike Lee and
Jason Chaffetz.If you take a look at those who are the driving force
behind CMV they have one thing in common; MONEY.It's sort of like the
Utah Compact. It's driven by the Chamber.These elite interests are
not the interests of the people.
Increased voter participation is a laudable objective, but I see no certainty
from the "Count My Vote" initiative that this result will be obtained if
direct primaries are implemented.There are any number of recent
schemes that have apparently been quite effective in turning out the popular
vote. Third-hand accounts of supporting comments would appear to be of this
genre. Letters from the Church urging people to participate in the local
grass-roots political process would seem a more legitimate effort.
Don't agree with Mitt on this one.
"An interesting thing about this, if you look at people who support it,
almost anyone who has ever been a governor or a member of Congress or senator or
a state legislator, they want this change to be made," Leavitt said
Sunday.Yes, it makes sense that those with established connections
and power bases would indeed be in favor of this.As governor, Mr.
Leavitt lobbied for a western states primary, but would now disenfranchise most
Utah counties-relegating them to "fly-overs".There was no
movement for this when the caucus system was serving the power players. The
good 'ole boy Republicans are just sore in behalf of Bob Bennett. I
believe Mike Leavitt would love to unseat Mike Lee and this is his way to do it.
Remove the process from it's roots and put the power back in the
brokers' hands, now that caucuses may no longer serve the good 'ole
Are some people feeling that their little empires might be threatened?Really what is wrong in letting the people vote on this issue themselves?Let the people decide
Giving credit where it is due -- Romney got this one right.
I would love to just go vote, be done, and have my vote count.I know
some people favor the caucus system but there are just SO many reason why people
can't or won't get involved.A simple vote gets rid of all
those reasons and makes it so everyone can just have their say without all the
When a sitting politician tries to counter the will of the people, typically it
is because he is either trying to protect his own ambitions / power, or he is
very courageous in the face of a misled public.Where do you think
Curt Brambles reasoning lies?
"Convention/caucus systems exclude so many people," the email reads.Wrong! The convention/caucus system excludes no one! When such
falsehoods are told in support of a proposition, it feels so much like politics
as usual lately.All interested citizens are invited to their local
caucus. All are invited to come informed and prepared to share their views.
Anyone who attends, especially those who have done due diligence to be
up-to-date on the issues, is eligible to be chosen to represent their caucus at
the state convention. This system puts career politicians at risk because their
future is in the hands of those most informed. Massive media campaigns paid for
by big spenders and special interests can't control this system so they
hate it.Please, help Utah keep government in the hands of an
informed public. Help defend the convention/caucus system from big money and
life-time-tenured, divine-right politicians.
in 2008, Jason Chaffetz beat 12 year incumbent Chris Cannon 60/40 in the prmary
with Rep. Cannon endorsed by Pres. Bush and the 1st lady, Mitt Romney, Sen.
Hatch and Bennett. When Jason Chaffetz won the nominee, the endorsers backed
Jason.I am thinking about why Utah changed from the neighborhood
caucus election system in 1937 (just so one democratic state senate president
could get elected governor for 8 years) and Count My Vote / Buy My Vote is
proposing to change the system again (just so one former republican governor can
get elected to the US Senate)I really hope the public is smarter
than that. In the 1937 case, it was the taxpayers that got stuck with the bill,
and the current poorly drafted proposed law would do the same thing again. This
time it will cost taxpayers, about 1/2 of it born by smaller counties, almost
$1,000,000 and then about $900,000 every two years if Count My Vote / Buy My
Vote were to pass.Someone has to have a pretty big ego to want to
buy a state's entire election system (or get Mitt to jump in as well) just
to get elected to a specific office.
This whole Count My Vote operation is nothing more than a process for the power
brokers in politics to eliminate the real thinking and political savvy
individuals that function in the caucus system. The caucus system is like a burr
under their saddle and they want to eliminate it as fast as possible.Not having a caucus system will hurt those in rural voting precincts. In the
end only those with the deep political pockets will win key offices in Utah and
the people will end up being nothing more than fodder to the political elite. I
was a state delegate and there's already enough corruption in the Utah GOP
to last a lifetime so let's not make it worse by enacting the Count My Vote
Perhaps Mitt Romney should be blasting Count My Vote for having no run off. "I’m concerned that that kind of approach (some caucus/convention
systems) could end up with a minority deciding who the nominee ought to be. And
that I think would be a mistake," he told The Globe. "I think we
should have the majority of the party’s voters decide who they want as
their nominee."Utah's Count My Vote / Buy My Vote (CMV)
doesn't get a majority of the parties voters to decide who they want. We do
that now. CMV has no run off and almost eliminates the possibility of the party
picking between 2 candidates, so virtually no majority candidate.Count My Vote is proposing a primary with no run off and unlimited candidates.
If the poorly drafted proposed law passes, the nominee will be selected by a
minority almost every time. Currently a nominee is selected by 60% of the
delegates or the majority at a primary between 2 candidates.
With all due respect Brother Romney, you were a loser in November, you are a
loser in February. It is time to hang-it-up. I would love to see you and all the
other "formers" go after the Party of Obama. Defeat them, not the Caucus
system, if you want to regain the Senate and keep the House in 2014.
Thank you, Mitt! A voice of reason!