All we talked about was who was willing to go to the convention. Everyone had a
conflict in their schedule. It was all about who could even attend, not issues
or where people stand on things. People have busy lives and can't give up a
whole Saturday on 1 month's notice. People had business trips, weddings,
and so forth. It'd be easy for someone with a crazy political bent to have
The caucus system is intended for a few to choose the person they want, not the
person the voters may want. This caucus system is intended to
exclude people. Voting for someone should include anyone the voter wants to
choose. The anointment of an extremist seems to be the Utah way." Second, how do you feel about an increased gas tax to indirectly
support education? "This is just another way of getting others
to pay for the ones that have a lot of children, for which they get exemptions.
When are the people that use the system the most going to start paying as much
as those that have few or non children?
The caucus system is working ONLY if you think keeping candidate selection in
the hands of a very few 'elites' is a good idea.
I noticed the same thing. The previous caucus meeting I attended a few years
ago every potential delegate was strongly against a Primary or dual track. This
time two potential delegates were strongly against CMV, the two highest vote
getting delegates openly supported the dual track system. Glad to say our
caucus meeting ranked both of the caucus system only delegate candidates at
the bottom and they made it to alternate delegate, and the moderates won. I was
pleasantly surprised. That said, I don't know if I would say
the caucus system is working. I would say that the people have got a taste of
the dual track system, and they support the dual track or a primary. The election of Curtis was huge. People don't want to go back to the few
vetting candidates for the rest of us, especially in a state where, for good or
bad, winning at the primary level in most precincts almost assures you of
Wow, Utafan60, did you notice that I'm on your side? My caucus experience
this week was that all who expressed an opinion favored the dual path system
that takes away the exclusive power from the conventions by allowing candidates
to get onto the ballot by gathering signatures. When many expressed favor with
the dual system created by SB54, we asked if anyone present would like to
express why they favor the pure caucus/convention system. No one spoke. I
conclude that either our entire precinct agreed with you, or any exceptions did
not have the courage to speak. And all 6 of our elected delegates to the
conventions favor the dual path system. I have no idea if any are LGBT or
non-mormon, etc. (I hope so) attended, but they were all nice people and I
didn't hear anything that sounded like Hannity. Inhale, exhale. Inhale,
exhale. I used the term "vetting" in my letter because the right wing of
my party has abused that term to consolidate their own power. Best wishes.
34 attendees at this caucus. Wow! That's that less than 100th of one
percentage point of the whole voting population. That represents everyone?
Hardly. I'd like to know the percentage of older retired
people? The percentage of people there who only listen to Fox News and Hannity?
White people? How many were minorities? How many women? How many LBGTQ
members of the Log Cabin Republicans? Moderate Republicans? Single parents?
Mormons? Catholics? Atheists? Not a huge cross representation of voters in my
opinion. More like the size of an auxiliary Church, or Eagle Forum meeting.34 people isnt a very good representation of all voters. Many educated
and honest voters have more information than those who have time to go to Caucus
meetings. Many have jobs, families, Church duties and frankly real lives. But
they also have access to information today like never before in the past. Their
votes are as important as those who self righteously say that the caucus system
"properly vetts canidates". The supporters of the caucus
system have lost the reality that they really don't know more than other
people. In some ways they know less.