If we're going to get on open vs closed primary...Why would
Republicans want Democrats or even Independents to pick their general election
candidates? I don't get it.Why would Democrats or Independents
assume it's their job to pick the Republican nominee?But SB-54
doesn't address that at all. SB-54 mandates how you get on the party
primary ballot. Not who can vote in the Republican primary. Luckily Republican
party can still expect you to be a Republican to vote in their primary. I
don't know why anybody else would WANT to vote in their primary. I have
no desire to vote in a DNC primary or a Green Party primary.Why do
Democrats care what the Republicans do? Can any Democrat answer that?Shouldn't you be focusing on getting better candidates that can win in
the General Election... instead of mandating how Republicans get on the
Republican Party Primary Ballot?I don't care how Democrats get
on the Democratic Primary Ballot. Why do Democrats care so much how Republicans
pick their primary lineup?
Having a primary to decide who appears on the primary ballot is a good solution.
But limit Primary to top-2 vote gitters. More than 2 and nobody will get
majority vote, and the normal-voters get split, and the most radical/different
candidate wins (because his vote isn't split/divided between several
similar candidates).That's how Trump won the Republican
nomination.It's easy math. Something Republicans should
learned from the past few Presidential campaigns where they allowed 10-16 people
in the Primary, so none of them had significant support or momentum. 10%
support was the best you could hope for (which doesn't' build momentum
or a voter-mandate for the General Election). Leaves the electorate feeling
they got their second choice (for ~80-90% of the voters). Not good.Keep it at 2 so voters have to pick and candidate getting majority of the
votes wins (not the largest fraction).Trump wouldn't win
nomination if the other normal candidate's votes weren't split over so
many candidates.If we allow candidates from convention, and from
other routes all on the primary ballot.... mainstream/popular candidates will
split popular vote so fringe candidate can win.
RE: "Eliminate Utah’s quirky caucus system that used to allow narrow
party interests to exert an outsized influence on the candidates nominated for
public office"...---Why does nobody seem to care how Democrats
pick the candidates for THEIR primary election?They use the same
caucus system... don't they? But nobody cares. Why?===IMOWe should either do what "Count My Vote" wanted and
abolish the party conventions and the caucus meetings, and just have a
free-for-all primary, or stay with the current caucus and convention system.
The hybrid 2-path system of using of both is malarkey and should not stand.
It's an idiotic idea.I don't think the party (either
party) should have to fund the campaign of a person who doesn't embrace
their platform or work to unite the party, and wants a different direction than
the party.If they want a different direction than the party... they
should run as an independent, not as a Republican. I would vote for them (if
they are right and the Republican platform is wrong).Don't run
as a Republican if you disagree with Republicans.===Twin
Lights,Topic here is not open-primary or closed-primary. That's a
Enough of the non sense. Bring back "Count My Vote". Let the will of
the people speak. Let the vote of the people determine their candidates.
I support the right of the Utah Democrat Party to choose its nominees in
whatever manner that party thinks best. Ditto the Libertarian Party,
Constitution Party, Socialist Party, and every other party.I also
support the right of the Utah Republican Party to choose its nominees in
whatever manner it thinks best.I believe that the caucus/convention
system provides a unique and highly successful means to choose nominees.
Unknown candidates without a lot of money or name recognition can compete quite
well against the rich and famous in convention. The influence of the media is
rather blunted. And delegates do a good job of vetting candidates' views
and records against the GOP platform and the wishes of the GOP grassroots.The very fact that in many Utah races the GOP nominee is a shoe-in to
win the general is one testament to how well the GOP nominating process works.
If the Utah GOP were nominating radically right wing, incompetent, or dishonest
candidates, voters would quickly reject the GOP. They haven't.And so liberals want to hijack the successful brand name. Pepsi in a Coke
bottle is still Pepsi. It is also deceitful.
Perhaps we should allow anyone to pen editorials and put the DesNews' name
on those editorials. After all, why should a few "elites" meeting
privately get to decide what editorials the public gets to read?Newspapers enjoy a special position in our society. Not only are they
afforded 1st amendment rights to speak and publish, but their reporters and
editorial board are granted access to courtrooms, crime scenes, and public
officials not generally afforded the general public. Further, newspapers are
sold tax free in Utah. Broadcast television--such as KSL--operate in the
limited, public airwaves. Media is given wide latitude in protecting
(concealing) the identity of sources.So we might argue that the
public has some right to have more direct input into how these
legally-advantaged entities operate.Of course, in this context it is
clear how unjust it would be allow others to label their views as the views of
the DesNews editorial board.Why is it not equally clear how unjust
it is to let Democrats or even Independents pick the GOP nominee?Each party should be free to choose the nominating process it wants.
Having lived in a state where independents could vote in the Primary (for just
one party or the other) it worked fine. No significant issues of folks trying
to mess up the "other guy's" election chances. Generally, it meant
more independently minded voters went to the Primary that had the candidate they
liked best. It generally meant less polarizing candidates who were more likely
to succeed in the General election.
I'm with Mike R.Political parties set their own rules. Those
who don't agree should run for party office, get sufficient delegates and
change the rules. You know, get some support for your position. Or, form your
own party - they claim to have the money so what else is needed?I am
uncomfortable with non-registered members of a party, or any organization,
telling the members how to run their "show".I feel many
elected officials who run under the Republican label are really conservative
Democrats or just political opportunists who needed a party's label to run
successfully. They are about self, or control of others to their perception of
how things should be done. The GOP should continue the fight.
The Republican Party has full right to set the rules by which it nominates and
authorizes any candidate who wishes to affiliate with the Republucan Party. The
Party has chosen to uphold our Democratic Republic system of government where
members in each precinct elect representatives as their proxies to elect those
who will represent the Republican Party at the nominating convention. No other system has been approved. The Deseret News is completely
wrong in its advice to the Republican Party. "Fat Cats" and
"Royalty" would dictate who represents Republicans. Those "Fat
Cats" and "Royalty" are trying to force their will on the people.I will not vote for any candidate who tries to make an end-run around
the caucus system. That includes any person running for any office.
"The ongoing fight against SB54 has put the Utah's GOP in a $300,000
hole of debt. "This is the party of "fiscal
responsibility"? This is the party that thinks they can manage Utah's
federal lands better/ Riiight.
Well stated opinion piece by the Deseret News. The caucus system should go. If
the Utah GOP is too blind to see the will of the voters on this matter and drop
this lawsuit, then the count my vote initiative should be resurrected and do
away with the caucus system altogether. At that point the right wing of the
Republican party will have some serious regrets and will wish they hadn't
pursued this fruitless battle.
Good op-ed. I agree. It's time to drop the legal battle and embrace