House GOP discusses bill aimed at Count My Vote in closed caucus

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • JenicaJessen Riverton, UT
    Feb. 26, 2014 5:04 p.m.

    Kings Court:
    Term limits? There was already a petition to impose them- in 1994. Before it hit the ballot, however, the legislature advanced a less-strict "compromise", and the initiative failed.

    Ten years later, in 2004, Senator Bramble quietly proposed a bill that struck down term limits (before any of them had actually had a chance to take effect). It passed. Term limits were no more despite the popular support.

    Ten years after that, we're facing another petition, another "compromise", and another change to the election system-- and this is how the legislature responds?

    Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on each and every person that voted for you.

    Feb. 26, 2014 3:24 p.m.

    @Lost in DC,
    I have followed some of your comments in the past, and we disagree on several issues. On this, however we are of like minds - It has to tell you something that the party in power is doing everything it can to prevent the people of the state from voting.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 26, 2014 2:11 p.m.

    my state senator (Osmond) was absent for the vote on the senate version of the bill (SB54). Had he voted for it, he would not get my vote. I intend to find out his position on it - if he supports it he will not get my vote. I hope then there is another GOP candidate as I cannot in good conscience vote for the dem. I guess I will look for a third party candidate or write someone in.

    I promise the same if Ken Ivory votes for the house version.

    Whether or not you agree with the initiative, this action by the legislature is totally reprehensible.

  • mcclark Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 26, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    All these complaints, and who are you going to vote for next time? Yeah, thats what I thought. Nothing will change until Republicans no longer know they will get elected no matter what.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Feb. 26, 2014 8:16 a.m.

    Ah, yes. Open, transparent government -- Utah GOP style.

  • hnoel Layton, UT
    Feb. 26, 2014 7:50 a.m.

    They closed the caucus because of possible litigation. Of course that's a convenient smokescreen. I truly believe the people of Utah have had all they can take of legislative shenanigans and games. This year I suggest "incumbency" should definitely be a hinderance in any legislative race.

  • On the other hand Riverdale, MD
    Feb. 26, 2014 1:35 a.m.

    The caucus system is flawed in so many ways. Voters are not equally represented in the caucus system; some precincts will have many more delegates than other precincts. Delegates who die, resign, or become disqualified can be replaced directly by the party leadership with no input from the people in the precinct (what kind of representation is that?). But the fundamental issue is that people who aren't elected delegates really have no say in whose names will appear on the ballot. The notion that one delegate could faithfully represent all the views of twenty of his or her neighbors is laughable, but some argue this is the whole point of the caucus system--to NOT represent everybody, to not have to worry about everybody's pesky opinion, to leave the decision making to a core of unadulterated, anointed party faithful whose wisdom greatly exceeds that of the poor dolts who selected them.

    I don't buy that argument. Representative democracy--selecting people to represent us in the lawmaking process--is great. Representative voting--selecting people to represent us in the process of selecting people to represent us in the lawmaking process--is just stupid.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Feb. 25, 2014 9:51 p.m.

    "...House Republicans closed their caucus Tuesday to talk privately about a controversial bill...".

    They represent all the people of Utah...don't they?

    What/Who are they so afraid of that they have to hide behind closed doors?

    One party rule operating behind closed doors ramming legislation down the throats of the people is only a problem if Democrats do it?

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    Feb. 25, 2014 9:12 p.m.

    The legislature had their chance and now, seeing the writing on the wall and their endless efforts for the self-preservation of their own power, they wish to do some minor tweaking with the terrible and exclusionary caucus system. I'm sorry, it is now time for the people to speak. Next up. Term limits for the legislature. Lets get a petition started for that.

  • Dr. G Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 25, 2014 8:45 p.m.

    BUY MY VOTE is bad for Utah. That's why so many legislators on the hill are looking seriously at SB59 as a way to preserve our caucus system and allow the low budget common man a chance to get elected. BUY MY VOTE, if passed into law, will change the system to a TV primary election campaign with the winner chosen by out of state big money donors spending millions to get their woman on TV without ever having to answer the tough questions.

    We'll end up with a liberal progressive republican running against a liberal progressive democrat in our general election. Big money will see to it that a conservative republican doesn't ever get elected in Utah again.

    Why do you think so many liberal progressives are collecting all the signatures for this? Because a liberal progressive democrat can't win a general election in Utah. But a liberal progressive republican, her agenda hidden behind millions in TV adds, can get elected.

    BUY MY VOTE is a Trojan horse that will give us two liberal progressive candidates in a general elction. SB59 will preserve the choice between a conservative and a progressive liberal in our elections.