"We're confident people want a change." "We're the only state where a handful of people, just a handful of people, routinely choose" candidates.
Former Governor Mike Leavitt - Deseret News
Count My Vote launches initiative to change Utah's primary elections
September 18, 2013
Count My Vote launches initiative to change Utah's primary elections
September 18, 2013
"In the process, as it exists, every [election] year there are legislators who get elected by 30 or 40 people and there are literally thousands of people who don’t get a chance to have their voice heard."
Former Governor Mike Leavitt - Salt Lake Tribune
Count My Vote launches effort for direct Utah primaries
September 18, 2013
Count My Vote launches effort for direct Utah primaries
September 18, 2013
"The current path to get on the ballot through the caucus and convention system ensures that only the most narrow ideological selection of candidates is available to Utah voters. Those politicians have to run on an extremely limited ideological platform to appeal to the extremes."
Bryan Schott - UtahPolicy.Com
Bryan Schott's Political BS - Held Hostage by the Caucuses
August 29, 2013
Bryan Schott's Political BS - Held Hostage by the Caucuses
August 29, 2013
- Count My Vote launches initiative to change Utah's primary elections
- Count My Vote launches effort for direct Utah primaries
"Why do you think these extreme elements want to hold on to the current system? Because it gives their issues a stronger voice. Moving to a primary to nominate candidates means more broad-based campaigning and appealing to a larger slice of the electorate," says UtahPolicy.Com's Bryan Schott:
We'll be standing by awaiting details of the upcoming petition drive of course, folks. When the petitions are available for distribution and your eager signatures, our ever-gentle WCF Readers will certainly be the first to know.
Democracy in Utah. What a concept.
Update 9/19/13 7:26 a.m.: As a bellwether indicator of just how stressed-out these right wing Utah wackos are, at the prospect of turning the political nomination process over to the broad-based Utah electorate, we find that no fewer than four "ubiquitous," cut/paste, anti-democracy, pro-caucus status quo "talking points" have already been "lodged" in our comments section below.
Update 9/20/13 9:36 a.m.: Via Bob Bernick: "Regular ole citizens should love the CMV petition. For it gives them a chance to recapture the nominating process of their particular political parties. In a one-party dominate state like Utah, the more people who get the chance to vote on a GOP candidate the better. It is as simple as that":
29 comments:
We have a system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, the wealthy or
the famous. This is a good thing, and should be preserved.
The Neighborhood Election and Convention system in Utah is the best way
to make sure a grassroots process can win over large amounts of money.
It is the only way someone with $100,000 can go against someone with $2
million in election funds.
We want neighbors discussing the best candidates and finding ways to
improve this state and the nation. If the system is changed, we would
be dropping off votes, but not meeting and discussing candidates and
issues. That is what is wrong with Washington, D.C. They don’t listen
to each other in a meeting. They watch from their offices. We need to
change that, not perpetuate it.
We already have a "bypass" system, filing as an unaffiliated candidate.
A candidate can go straight to the general election ballot. Someone who
doesn't think they can win if vetted by average citizens asking one on
one questions can still run and spend their money. Why should they be a
political party nominee if they are going to bypass their political
party?
At only one time for 10 years in Utah’s history did the state depart
from the Neighborhood Election, Caucus and Convention System. In 1937,
a powerful democratic state senator convinced enough of the legislature
to switch to an open primary. He had had two losses, a US Senate race
and also for governor, because the majority of the convention delegates
disagreed with his legislative voting record. But he was well known and
had money.
Many at the time felt like an open primary was his ticket to the
governorship, and he did win. But the change in the system only lasted
for a decade. After public and media disillusionment, and even worse
voter turnout, Utah restored the Caucus and Convention System. Why go
back?
Our current problem with voter turnout is it has not kept up with the
population increases. The voter turnout keeps going up but not as fast
as the population. Some of that is the younger voters, where Utah has a
larger percentage of them and they aren't, as a group, as involved. We
need to educate those moving in and not understanding our system.
Many citizens who attend their neighborhood elections and caucus
meeting become interested in politics and get involved in their
communities, the state and the nation. They meet and help candidates
become elected. Some then later become candidates. This should be
encouraged through education.
The system and the experience attending the meetings can always be
improved, but the “Count My Vote” initiative isn't the way to do it.
Any changes to the system the political parties use to determine their
nominees should be determined by the political parties.
"Democrats, do not be manipulated into into helping the GOP insiders in their internal war. DO NOT help the initiative–DO get
involved in helping Utah Democrats decide own own future by getting
involved in our review of our party’s process."
Jim Dabakis earlier this
year, in a letter to the party.
I am a major proponent of the caucus system and would love to explain why I like it so much and why this is such a flawed idea. Call me if you wish to discuss. 801.589.0583 This is hard to explain here in short messages. I can try though.
It appears that you have never gone to a neighborhood caucus meeting with a minority opinion. Being intereputed and insulted while speaking is a common occurance at caucus meetings. The meetings are not convenient for everyone to attend. Giving more input and decision making responsibility to a wider range of people scares the caucus proponets.
What we currently have is a system that does not favor moderate and responsible canidates. It is slanted in favor of extreme canidates who tend to favor wildly rigid idealogical viewpoints.
I agree with Rudi, I love the idea of the caucus system, but like a Norman Rockwell painting they are not reality. I have been to many and it seems invariably they are run by a single issue group who work to see only their delegates elected. (Honestly I have been on both sides of that getting my special interest group elected) Then once the small group decides they election is essentially over. I think there needs to be a chance for other candidates to make it to the primary
The caucus system just perpetuates the good old boy (and is it ever!) network. Maybe the Republican majority doesn't like "democracy" because they confuse the word with Democrat.
Citizen initiatives should not exist at all in my opinion. The majority should never be able to tell a Non Government entity how it may choose a candidate, just as a majority should not be able to deny me the right to marry my husband.
We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. The larger the population, the less effective democracy is and the larger the group, the easier to manipulate with less and less truth.
This is untrue sir. Remember that most of the extreme candidates people refer to in the GOP all won in primaries, not at convention, like Lee, Swallow, Chaffetz, and even Hatch. That was a primaries fault, not a caucus fault.
You are right, while I have not been always gotten my way, I have never in 20 years attended a caucus meeting like you describe. And given your thoughts, I also assume you have not been to any of the GOP caucus meetings in the last 3 cycles. While not perfect, the caucus system allows everyday citizens like you to be able to hold elected officials at all levels accountable. A direct primary is a guarantee for more incumbents to win and primarily based on who spends the most amount of money. As an openly gay man, I have little chance of winning in a primary race, where my sexuality is more important than issues. In the caucus system, I can talk issues and win over delegates to see I am not crazy or fridge and am willing to work hard one by one.
Apparently you don't subscribe to the philosophy that that the lumpencitizens should be able to change the 'rules" via the ballot; I guess, eh James?
Gotta say I'm still dumbfounded about how you (of all people) still "puts your nose to the rail" of your Utah GOP "Masters."
You are correct, I don't. We elect representatives to make and change the rules for us. The is what we do in a Republic (indirect control of the government by the people) Hence why we elect the school board, city council etc. We don't vote oh how many schools to build or teachers to hire. If we do not like what they do, we vote them out. That is how it works. Hence my opposition to ballots. We have seen the GOP and Dems multiple times do the wrong thing with ballots, including putting marriage on that ballots in most states. Marriage is a fundamental right. The majority doesn't get to say if valid or not. It is always valid. The US Constitution nor the state Constitution were ratified by the people. They were ratified by legislatures who represent the people.
I should clarify as well. I think when the city is going in to debt like bonding, that the citizens should weigh in on the part time councils decision. However could you image what it would be like to have to have a national vote every time we had to raise the debt ceiling, or to build a new aircraft carrier.
The right for citizens to file initiative petitions is enshrined in the body of the Utah Constitution. But if you wish to remove that provision you could start a initiative petition to remove the right to file initiative petitions from the Utah Constitution. Ironic isn't it. You would have to file an initiative petition to get on the ballot to remove the right to file initiatives
Nice to know that a spokesperson for a city council candidate does not trust the people who vote to make good decisions.
Many people who favor the caucus system like it because it only gives people who are free to attend a single two hour meeting to make a choice. False and misleading claims abound at caucus meetings. If the caucus system wished to involve more people it would run from 7am to 8pm, the same time the election places are open for voting.
You are right sir. That does not mean I like them. I think very few things should go directly to the people. That removes the responsibility for certain decision from the representatives we elect and make it harder to hold them accountable. But I totally see the irony...and it was well said sir.
I am not the spokesman as I have said many times. And electing a council member is what representative government is about. And at the risk of getting into trouble, I think most of us are far to uninformed when we enter the ballot box. We have become rather complacent as a society when exercising our right to vote.
I have made just such a suggestion to the SCC for the GOP already. I have made some other recommendations as well. You are right, neighborhood elections for our various party require more election like behavior. When was the last time you attended a GOP caucus?
The caucus system actually breaks the back of the good ol boy network. The good ole boys can't simply buy the delegate vote, as they do in most primaries. Follow the money. Look at where the campaign contributions come from and see how similar they are in so many races.
Ah yes, the great 'uninformed" electorate. Generally when someone refers to the "uninformed" it refers to those who choose to believe and vote differently than the ';informed" desire..
Why are you so curious as to my attendance at either parties caucus?
I'm a Republican. We have a super majority in the legislature. I think I vote with the majority way more than not. When I say uninformed, I mean candidates deliberately do not spend time educating voters about what they believe and they certainly do not back it up in a primary situation. They do not have the time. The electorate is left to guess with little information. The county and state delegates meet with them one on one and get a real chance to vet individuals. That vetting done by our neighbors is way better than just vetting by the media and the mass produced campaigns of a primary or general election. We get plenty of mass produced primaries and generals currently. Removing the neighborhood election process entirely, further limits interaction with candidates and individual constituents. We already have far to little of that with higher elected officials already.
I am curious because you keep demeaning the caucus system without any qualification. Much has been streamlined and improved and attendance is far better today than 10 years ago. Training for precinct chairs is way better and far more organized than in the past. Your comments seem rather dated. Without qualification, I do not how serious to take your claims. They may have already been addressed, I do not know.
What those who continue to favor the caucus system fear is a loss of power because they can easily manipulate the system. But if the initiative referendum gets on the ballot they will have to become more moderate and representative of the Utah population.
Yet the people seeking city office did not get selected via caucus meetings. I believe we get canidates more typical of the citizens because we have a prrimary election.
No your explanation of "uninformed" as you first stated means people who do not believe in your choice. While you are not the spokesperson for Ms. White you represent yourself as a insider on the campaign.
and have given explanations for her positions. When someone speaks or someone supports a delegate at a caucus meeting there is no way to hold the delegate responsible for the actions of the person they support.
Post a Comment