Fight over Count My Vote may not be over yet

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • cmsense Kaysville, UT
    May 15, 2014 6:39 a.m.

    @ Constitutionalist

    "The state can make whatever rules it wants for how people qualify to be on the November ballot."

    I agree like requiring any political party to allow alternate paths to the primary ballot if they want their candidate to be allowed onto the November ballot.

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    May 15, 2014 4:11 a.m.

    This article should have been more specific, to clarify that the result of Jewel Allen’s change of heart is that she now SUPPORTS the caucus system. Others have had a similar experience. Keep the current caucus system. It works well.

  • Constitutionalist South Jordan, UT
    May 13, 2014 2:05 p.m.


    I suspect that you are right about the ballot in November being the "State's" ballot.

    The state can make whatever rules it wants for how people qualify to be on the November ballot.

    However, if the state invites the parties to supply one candidate to represent their party on the ballot, it would be up to the party to determine how they want to select their representative.

    The caucus system was never about controlling the November ballot. It is about how the parties nominate their candidate. It is really none of the business of the government as to how the parties select someone to represent them on the November ballot. The whole "Count My Vote" movement was an attempt by a few short-sighted people to cause the government to get involved in something that is out of their jurisdiction.

    If a person wants to be on the November ballot, then the State would have rules for that. If they want to represent a particular party, such as the Democrat or Republican party, then they need to follow the rules set by the party in their attempt to win the party nomination.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    May 13, 2014 8:03 a.m.

    I oppose the caucus/insider control system, and I completely oppose the "compromise".

    Bramble's insistance that a party's primary be open to non-party members is wrong on too many levels. Only republicans should decide who will represent the GOP in the general election and only dems should decide who represents the dem party in general elections. Bramble was just wrong to insist on open primaries!!!

  • cmsense Kaysville, UT
    May 12, 2014 10:36 p.m.

    Bramble is right. It is the Peoples ballot and the STATE can make rules on how a person makes it onto the ballot. Besides, a large portion of the CMV supporters are Republicans like Gov. Leavitt and Mitt. so why do the caucas supporters feel they own the party. That was the problem in the first place.

    I don't need or want a representative to choose my representative!

    If that is a better system, why don't we just extend that logic again and again to even get a better system. Lets elect representatives to vet representatives then let those representatives choose among themselves representatives to vet and choose representatives etc until we have like 7 "SUPER" delegates properly vetted who can choose the final ballot candidates. No those candidates won't be beholden to the people, just to the "super" delagates who will claim to know so much more than the rest of us and think that system is great because their views are totally represented. In reality the 7 "super" delegates would leave a large portion of the populace without their views proportionally represented !