The Same Day Ballot for the Neighborhood Caucus Election Republican Meeting

The Same Day Ballot for the 2014 Neighborhood Caucus Election Republican Meeting

It started about a year ago with some at the Utah Republican State Central Committee (SCC) trying to figure how to grant an exception or maybe even a proxy vote for some that couldn't come to the  the Neighborhood Caucus Election Meeting.

The idea of a Proxy Vote was defeated, and it has taken many months to come up with a Same Day Ballot (SDB) system. It has many protections so it isn't a proxy vote. The person prints out their own ballot, which has a number to avoid copying it. They fill out their own ballot that day and put it in an envelope, seal it, and sign across the seal, so we know it wasn't someone else. They provide the ballot and copies of their state ID to whoever is bringing the ballot that allows those receiving it to check the signature and make sure the person is a registered voter in the precinct. The ID is given back to the person that brought in the ballot so we don't have issues with ID theft or party liability for the ID copies.

It was structured in such a way to allow the mom who was planning on coming to the neighborhood caucus election meeting, but her kids got sick to still vote, or the firefighter, for example, that had to work that night. We want people to come to the meeting, but things can come up that can't be controlled. The Same Day Ballot (SDB) is designed to not provide an incentive for people to avoid the meeting. The person that just had knee surgery that uses a SDB, is not likely to be able to come, and the SDB will actually increase the number participating and not decrease it.

Because the ID with the ballot was given outside the envelope, the party never gets control of it, and the person selected to deliver the ballot is going to be a spouse, family member or trusted friend. People will not give a copy of their ID to someone they don't know. That would make sure someone representing a campaign didn't try to abuse the system.

We added a pre-meeting before the Neighborhood Caucus Election Meeting from 6pm to 7pm and advance registration, to encourage, but not require, those wanting to run for delegate or precinct chair, etc. to let people know in advance so those that couldn't come would know who to vote for, and have time to call them up and ask questions. The SDB allows a write in vote, so if they know or want someone to be nominated that night, they can vote for them as well.

The next concern, which was discussed in Filmore, during the October 26th SCC meeting, was a limit as to how many of the Same Day Ballots could be brought in by one person.

Since we live in Utah, and we also have small rural towns, there are people that are trusted in each community that could pick up quite a number of the SDB. The proposal in Fillmore was to limit the number of SDB's a person could bring in to one (1). That was discussed and rejected. five (5) was a number discussed, but it wasn't approved either. We wanted to have a large enough number to make sure the mom or the firefighter could find someone to bring their SDB in, or if a family got sick, the voters in the household would turn in their votes, but small enough so as to not encourage abuse. On Saturday, Dec. 14th, the SCC decided three (3) was the best number for the limit of SDB's a person could bring in.

Some have raised concerns that the number 3 would be limiting. In the September 21st SCC meeting, a resolution titled "Resolution to Increase Voter Participation and Defend the Utah Neighborhood Election" passed the committee with no one voting against it, so the majority, and perhaps all the members of the SCC believe we want increased voter participation. We had over 110,000 voters come to the Republican Neighborhood Caucus Election Meeting, and we made improvements so that number can continue to increase. It has doubled and then doubled again. We don't know that we will have 250,000 voters show up in 2014, but we want to be as prepared for that as we can, and we want to hear more from those running at the same time.

It was made clear that the limit of 3 would not limit the number of firefighters that could participate, as they would each have family and friends that could deliver the ballot for them. It was also make clear that this limit would not apply to the Same Day Military & Mission Ballots that are sent to the precinct chair and vice chair. That had other protections to make sure we know who is voting.

Note, the approx. 180 committee members were elected by either state or county delegates which total 4000 (state) or approx. 10,000 (county), that were elected by over 110,000 registered Republican voters in 2012. Each county has at least 2 or more members.

The truth about neighborhood election night attendance hospital doctors firefighters military missionaries

For the GOP alone, neighborhood election night attendance doubled in 2010 and again in 2012 exceeding 110,000 voters. Same Day Ballots approved for 2014 will help the hospital doctor and firefighter along with the military and missionary to vote at the meeting. Turnout can continue to grow, from the 20% registered GOP voters attending in 2012 to even higher with additional upgrades approved for 2014.

Why this compromise isn't a compromise.

There are several ways to save fair elections in Utah, and this proposed bill is not the way to do it.  To have a real compromise you need to work with the parties on all sides. The Republican State Central Committee has been fighting on several related issues for a year. After months of hammering it out, on October 26, 2013 we were able to agree on meaningful changes. The key players on that compromise are not on board, let alone at the table of this proposed "compromise". The last thing we need is to go backwards and not forward. 

According to information we have on a proposed "compromise" law being proposed:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/57190718-82/vote-party-convention-percent.html.csp

The following proposed changes and goals are part of the bill.
1. Allow absentee and remote voting in the neighborhood caucuses and allow more time for people to vote on line or by mail for their delegates.
2. Allow absentee and remote voting by delegates in the convention.
3. Allow unaffiliated voters to vote in party primaries.
4. Change the threshold for a candidate to win the party’s nomination outright at the convention, from 60 percent of the delegate vote to 65 percent. 

What has already passed the Republican State Central Committee?
See: 
Passed Resolutions from October 26, 2013
1. Resolution to Improve the Language of the Republican Party's System of Nominating Candidates
2. Resolution to Improve the Republican Party Neighborhood Caucus Election Experience by Recommending an optional Neighborhood Meet and Greet with Candidates
3. Resolution to Improve the Republican Neighborhood Caucus Election Check-In Process
4. Resolution to Improve the Republican Neighborhood Caucus Elections by Creating An Online Registration Process
5. Resolution to Allow Same-Day Balloting at Republican Neighborhood Caucus Election Meetings
6. Resolution on Participation by Individuals Engaged in Out of State Military and Religious Service at Neighborhood Caucus Elections

[updated rules as of Dec. 14, 2013
http://www.1888932-2946.ws/ComTool6.0/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Caucus%20Rules%202014.pdf

]

Response to the reported bill, and why the changes are no go at the start.
Goal 1. & 2. The Republican SCC has come up with a same day ballot for the neighborhood elections. While allowing a fire fighter or a mom with sick kids to have their voice heard that night, care was taken to make sure it would not decrease attendance at the meeting. Having an "absentee" ballot will take the "meeting out of the meeting". This is especially true of the convention. 

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.

As you know from 2008 to 2010 neighborhood election meeting attendance doubled. From 2010 to 2012, meeting attendance doubled again. There is hope that in 2014, it will double again and 250,000 will attend. I know that The State GOP has a committee that is working to make sure we don't have the same growth problems for 2014 and that the system can handle the volume of those interested and still allow time to meet candidates and ask questions. 

One of the arguments for the proposed changes is that Salt Lake County can't handle over 200,000 attending for the GOP neighborhood elections. Let’s see if we can keep increasing turnout and meet the goals before ruining what we have.

Goal 3. Count My Vote has left alone Utah's "semi-closed" primaries as their legal analysis said it would help protect CMV from being tossed out in court.
In Utah if you are unaffiliated you can affiliate at the polls. This has been the state law has been for over 10 years. This system has been found to allow participation and still almost eliminate cross over voting where someone votes to pick the weaker candidate in a primary so their candidate will win in the general election.

The law had a sunset every 5 years and had existed for 10 years. After extending the law 5 more years failed in committee the summer of 2012, a bill file to eliminate the sunset or expiration date was pulled. It was signed into law, 2013 H.B. 262 Unaffiliated Voter Amendments. It keeps the current law and removes an automatic expiration date.

In 2010, concerns in even the national media that there would be a crossover vote by the Republican voters to get Rep. Matheson eliminated in a primary election never happened. There were two reasons; first, the GOP had a close primary for US Senate where Mike Lee just barely beat Tim Bridgewater, who had been endorsed by Sen. Bob Bennett. The 2nd reason was the current state law re: unaffiliated voters and a 30 day requirement for other voters to affiliate.

The system we have saves almost a $1 Million over the "direct" primary proposed by Count My Vote, which doesn't change the ability for unaffiliated voters to vote and eliminates our current run off primary. . 

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? 

Goal 4. The 60% threshold to avoid a primary works, allowing a shot of a challenger to eliminate an incumbent and yet requires a challenger to be a strong candidate. Raising it to 65% threshold would have make a few more primaries, but the risk of an incumbent losing, or someone rich or famous losing would also go down. Do the rich, famous or incumbents really need the protection?

The current system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy or famous. That is a good thing.

5 reasons not to sign their petition

1. The "bill" Count My Vote, or proposed law is flawed, terribly so. Even some of the strongest supporters admit the legislature will have to fix it if this mess passes.

We tell public officials to kill these kind of errors in committee, not skip the public hearing, not read the bill and vote to send it to the floor of the legislature to decide if it should pass or not.

That is exactly what Count My Vote is telling people to do. Sign it, unread, and hope everyone realizes next fall it doesn't deliver. They could have amended it but chose not to and by law, can no longer amend the "bill".

2. This proposed law will cost taxpayers millions, $1 Million the first year and almost that every 2 years, with about 1/2 of the unfunded mandate being picked up by the less populous counties, the ones that the same proposed law will cause to be flyover places where the candidates and elected officials won't come anymore.

3. When Utah tried a direct primary in 1937 to 1947, it came with a run off primary, so the majority would elect the nominee. When the voting turn out and the cost drove the public and the media to reject that system - a compromise, caucus/convention and run off primary was created. We have that today. Count My Vote not only removes the nominating for general elections using delegates, it removes the run off primary system we have and nominees will no longer be selected out of a 2 person race.

4. The political royalty sponsors of Count My Vote loved the current system when the turnout to the neighborhood caucus elections meetings (GOP) was about 25,000, but when it exceeded 50,000 and 100,000, they no longer want that system because they no longer have the power. They don't tell you that the same delegates, proposed to be elected by closer to 10,000 attendees will still pick nominees such as the replacement for Spencer Cox.

5. They claim more people will be able to vote. A large percentage of voters will not affiliate to vote in the GOP primary election and those same people will not be able to vote in a "GOP" direct primary under Count My Vote.  They will get to pay more as Count My Vote makes sure the parties will not be picking up the tab they currently do, it will be the taxpayers, unaffiliated or not.

Don't sign, just to vote on it later. Do read it. Do find out more. I trust if you actually understand what you will get, you will not sign the Count My Vote / Buy My vote initiative.

Below is my non legal analysis of the problems with Count My Vote

From Fred C. Cox, former member of the Utah House of Representatives

In 2011 and 2012 I had more than 1300 floor votes on bills as a member of the Utah House of Representatives. That doesn't include votes in committees. (if you combined both years, I missed the fewest floor votes of any legislator of both parties and both houses). I was in the Senate Chambers during those 5 of 1302 votes. There were also special sessions, and I didn't miss any of those floor votes).

I have read through in excess of 1000 bills to decide whether or not to vote for them or not. Whether or not you agree with the policy being submitted as Count My Vote or not, as I ask that you vote against it now.

It is my experience that most bills that reach the floor of the house pass. The bad ones are killed in committee. We have had the public hearings on Count My Vote. They (Count My Vote sponsors) have opted not to amend their "bill" or proposed law after the public meetings where they received very little public support. The proposed law stands or fails as written.

In my opinion it fails. Below is my non legal analysis of the problems with Count My Vote. (I am not an attorney) You elect legislators to vote on bills prior to them becoming law. You elect a governor to also verify and sign the bill before it become law. The legislature can override a veto. The public can veto a bill that has less than a 2/3 vote in both houses by referendum.

You are not being asked to veto a current law. You are being asked to make a new law. It has to stand on its own. You don't know if someone else is going to fix it later.

Count My Vote is asking you to sign their "bill". It is over 20 pages. Before you sign it and long before it is to be voted on, You must read it for your self. I hope the following notes help you decide to not to sign the petition and to kill this "bill" before it is to be voted on.

It is my opinion that Count My Vote is poorly drafted. It is my opinion that it creates bad policy and makes our current system worse. Based on that, there is no reason to vote for it, even if you don't like our current system. It doesn't make it better.

My Notes (very rough form, you were warned):


In a nutshell, CMV was drafted by 2 different people that seemed to ignore each other. One tries to strip the party designation away from any party that doesn't play by the new rules and nominates candidates not using the new system and the other person makes sure No One can be on the ballot unless they follow the new rules. If the Party doesn't sign up, none of the candidates will show up with the party designation, but that isn't true as if you get the signatures you are on the ballot for the party you pick. CMV allows the party to decide to opt out or not, but not really.

The unequal 2% barrier that CMV uses would likely fail in court. A Democratic governor candidate would need 2,812 signatures to be a nominee, a Republican would need 13,162. A Unaffiliated Candidate with 1,000 signatures currently and also under Count My Vote would need 1,000 to go straight to the general election.
http://elections.utah.gov/party-and-status



The "bill" Count My Vote, or proposed law is flawed, terribly so. Even some of the strongest supporters admit the legislature will have to fix it if this mess passes.

http://elections.utah.gov/election-resources/initiatives


has the "bill", fiscal note, and public meetings video. compare the slides from the Provo meeting and their current website. You will find they are different and that the public hearings used incorrect and confusing information about their proposal and what we currently have at best. For my opinion on the timing of the public hearings, if you missed them, see:

http://fairelectionsutah.blogspot.com/2013/10/count-my-vote-of-swipe-my-vote.html

Item #0
They can't amend the "bill" anymore. You must vote on it as it is.
20A-7-204.1 (4)a

Most of the current laws re: the initiatives are at:

http://www.le.utah.gov/code/TITLE20A/htm/20A07_020100.htm

quick stuff is here:
http://elections.utah.gov/election-resources/utah-initiatives

They missed the 3 days prior to public hearing required Lt. Gov. filing deadline per
20A-11-802 (1) (v)

They just filed their financials with the Lt. Gov. but didn't make up the previous one. 

They will be fined $100 for not following the law.

http://disclosures.utah.gov/Search/PublicSearch/FolderDetails/1411317


Problems with the CMV proposed law include: Line numbers are from the CMV "bill". Other references are from state law. You can look any of them up yourself at:

http://le.utah.gov/UtahCode/title.jsp

Items:
1. They change the status of the Lt. Gov. handling races crossing county lines. See for example lines 186 and 190, 230, etc.

2. They use 20A-6-301 paper ballots which isn't used any more (Maybe San Juan Co).

We don't use the separate but unequal paper ballots anymore.

See for example lines 112 to 114. Can't forget those candidates we put way over there. :)

Tell me 20A-6-301 violates Fed. Election laws, or the 14th amendment.

3. They let parties opt out but not really. See 100, 101, They repeat is at 129, 130 ,etc. It appears that if we don't play by their rules, (line 305) our party is stripped from the ballot, but they claim if I fill out the petition with signatures I will be on the primary ballot. Line 290 says General Election.

4. They claim an unaffiliated or democratic candidate can't get on our GOP primary ballot. While it is almost clear the petition signers have to be registered party members, or at least will be by the end of March the next year, and will be registered voters, at least by then, It isn't clear that the candidate is. See line 211. The use of preferred affiliation is not defined and is used only in current Utah code to describe Smith' Cards for going shopping.

5. We get to keep the GOP primary election closed, so the unaffiliated will get to watch at home and pay almost $1 Million the first year and $900,000 for the privilege, unless they affiliate. They can do that now.

6. Rookie mistakes with "and" and "or". See line 427, 3rd word "and" and 453, 1st word "or". As we all should know, in a state law, and and or are not the same. You are guilty of X if you are going 65 MPH and driving in Provo vs  You are guilty of X if you are going 65 MPH or driving in Provo. In the last case anyone driving in Provo at any speed would be in violation of the law.

[update, Line 453 is designed to be "or". It creates problems however, as discussed below. Line 427 can be "and" as noted, but with the two "or"s on lines 426 it needs to be on 3 separate lines, so it isn't confusing. This is important as this section could make it so some 17 year old future voter is charged with a Class A misdemeanor for trying to help and not realizing in November that in March their plans had changed. This is the section that is supposed to make sure people signing the nominating petition realize the criminal penalty they face for incorrectly signing the nominating petition. In this case the proposed law takes away from the clerk the ability to make it more clear and tells them the exact wording to use. We should evaluate the policy of setting up a teenager to be a criminal . We want to avoid voter fraud, but perhaps another solution should exist.]

7. There is no run off primary election. While the Deseret News in 1946    

may or may not like what we have today, they didn't want to just toss out the expensive run off elections. Unlimited candidates for the primary, we could have 20 others in the race and one might win with just 6% of the vote and not a majority.

8. According to the person that wrote the fiscal note (additional cost to taxpayers if this new law is enacted), I called, about 1/2 of the $1 million will be picked up by the counties, and most of it the smaller counties. It is like a state unfunded mandate, unless the Utah Legislature decides to fund from the state to the counties.

9. Count My Vote had a conference call with the County Clerks prior to the Fiscal Note being released. I don't know if that is like witness tampering or not. If the fiscal note is low by 25%, the legislature can toss Count My Vote out the window if they choose., even if it is signed by the petition and the majority of the votes vote for it. See 20A-7-214 (2). 

10. Unlike a typical fiscal note for a Utah Law, no funding is provided for this proposed law. This sounds like what they do in Washington D.C.

11. Former Rep. Spencer J. Cox has a replacement being nominated by delegates selected at our neighborhood caucus election meetings. That system will remain, it is not changed by CMV, there will just be almost no one coming to the neighborhood caucus election meetings if CMV were to pass. They are concerned we don't have enough balanced attendees now, what will happen if CMV were to pass?

12. While 2% isn't a tough number of a state house seat, it is a tough number for state wide races. Much more for GOP candidates and the democratic candidates will need fewer signatures.

13. any party endorsements would not show up on a ballot like they claim . 20A–6-301, where they have put back door loophole wording in isn’t used anymore. We use electronic voting machines or vote by mail ballots. See item 2. I am hearing the Utah Legislature might get rid of 20A–6-301 or replace it in 2014 and if so it won't be there in 2015 if CMV passes. What happens then?


I hope this helps,

PS, they "cheated" as not all of the section in whole changed are included in the proposed law.  

The . . . is used. You actually need to read a lot more than 20 pages to see what sections of State law will be changed.


Misc notes:
Lines 209 to 211
I __ declare my candidacy for the office of __ seeking the nomination of the ___ party, which is my preferred political party affiliation.

Currently, a person declares their intention of becoming a candidate for a party. There is no certification when filing required as to what party they belong to, that is up to the political party. In this case, the state would take away the party's ability to control or vet or eliminate any candidate that wants to be their nominee.

Lines 209 to 211 DO NOT state that the ____ party is the party affiliation on their voter registration of the person running, it does have the words "which is my preferred political party affiliation" . I do not believe that is clear.

The person declaring their candidacy for an office, has to get signatures from people that are either now registered to vote or signing they will be registered to vote by 5pm on the final day of March. The people signing have to list their party affiliation of the registered voter. This allows someone that isn't 18 on Nov. 15th of the year before to sign their name and then later register to vote prior to the end of March of the election year.

Is Line 211 clear enough that the person signing to run as a candidate for that party, is a registered member of that party? I don't believe so. It uses the word "preferred" and not "registered". That is splitting hairs for some of the average public, but it isn't for the legislature, or Leg. Research. CMV representatives have specifically used the words Registered in response to questions. CMV uses no such word for the candidate.

The reason I even post this one, is I am tripping over one word, "preferred". Currently, there are those that have run for office as unaffiliated and I am thinking this word v "registered" leaves the door open. I would like to get feedback on this prior anyone saying that someone doesn't have to be a registered republican to run as a republican.

Party affiliation is used in statute. Registered Party is used. I can see getting a registered political party affiliation. Preferred political party affiliation is not used, nor is there anything close to it. Preferred affiliation used in the same section only refers to a "Smith Card", requirements.
You will find that in 59-12-102. Smith's cards.

for the signature sheet of the voter signing the petition it uses the term "Party Affiliation of Registered Voter". That is clear enough to make sure that party members sign the petition, with the exception of one very large loop hole:

I think it interesting that line 453 uses the word "or" and 427 uses the word "and" putting it unclear if the person signing the petition needs to be currently registered to vote or just promises under penalty of a A Class A misdemeanor, that they will be registered by the end of March. How will the candidate know that they do that?


[update, Line 453 is designed to be "or". It creates problems however, as discussed below. Line 427 can be "and" as noted, but with the two "or"s on lines 426 it needs to be on 3 separate lines, so it isn't confusing. This is important as this section could make it so some 17 year old future voter is charged with a Class A misdemeanor for trying to help and not realizing in November than in March their plans had changed. This is the section that is supposed to make sure people signing the nominating petition realize the criminal penalty they face for incorrectly signing the nominating petition. In this case the proposed law takes away from the clerk the ability to make it more clear and tells them the exact wording to use. We should evaluate the policy of setting up a teenager to be a criminal . We want to avoid voter fraud, but perhaps another solution should exist.]


"Independents and Unaffiliated voters have said they want Parties to fund their own closed primaries"
CMV does just the opposite. It prohibits parties from doing that, or selecting their own nominees, and requires that be done by the state at the state expense.

Independents and Unaffiliated voters want to vote for any candidate in a primary funded by them. They want the primaries to be "open". Lines 305 to 308 allow a party to let anyone vote in "their" state run primary, or just a specific party and whether or not unaffiliated voters can vote. That is current state law and doesn't change.

While CMV isn't a true California ballot, you are correct that there is no limit to the number of candidates that could show up on your ballot. CMV has made it a little tougher than CA to get on so their might not be quite as many. I could get 100 to sign in my own precinct and someone could do the same in the other 21 precincts and we could get 20 on the primary Republican ballot.


Mr. Owens (sponsor letter op-ed to the SL Tribune) letter is like telling the Utah Legislature it can meet, but only pass resolutions and that it can’t pass laws anymore.
Yes, the caucus convention system would remain, but it couldn’t nominate anyone for public office, except mid term elections.

His argument is pretty deceptive. He needs to realize that any endorsements would not show up on a ballot like they claim. 20A–6-301, where they have put wording in isn’t used anymore. We use electronic voting machines or vote by mail ballots.

Unaffiliated would still not vote in GOP elections. They would pay more to watch.

Who benefits under Count My Vote / Buy My Vote?
out of the $144,000   they just spent, Exoro’s got $110,000 and Donald Dun’s group got $30,000. ie the political consultants.

Mitt Romney just blasted the caucus system because a majority doesn't decide. If you look at item #7 above, Count My Vote takes that away from Utah voters.

For more information on this subject see:

http://fairelectionsutah.blogspot.com/

Perhaps Mitt Romney should be blasting Count My Vote having no run off

Perhaps Mitt Romney should be blasting Count My Vote for having no run off. 

"I’m concerned that that kind of approach (some caucus/convention systems) could end up with a minority deciding who the nominee ought to be. And that I think would be a mistake," he told The Globe.    "I think we should have the majority of the party’s voters decide who they want as their nominee."

Utah's Count My Vote / Buy My Vote (CMV) doesn't get a majority of the parties voters to decide who they want. We do that now. CMV has no run off and almost eliminates the possibility of the party picking between 2 candidates, so virtually no majority candidate.

Count My Vote is proposing a primary with no run off and unlimited candidates. If the poorly drafted proposed law passes, the nominee will be selected by a minority almost every time. Currently a nominee is selected by 60% of the delegates or the majority at a primary between 2 candidates.

There have been 10 times the numbers coming to the neighborhood caucus elections than would be required to get signatures or votes to be the nominee under Count My vote. For a legislative district, there could be as few as 100 signatures vs 1000 caucus attendees and depending on the number of candidates, fewer votes for the nominee than caucus attendees.

in 2008, Jason Chaffetz beat 12 year incumbent Chris Cannon 60/40 in the prmary with Rep. Cannon endorsed by Pres. Bush and the 1st lady, Mitt Romney, Sen. Hatch and Bennett. When Jason Chaffetz won the nominee, the endorsers backed Jason.

I am thinking about why Utah changed from the neighborhood caucus election system in 1937 (just so one democratic state senate president could get elected governor for 8 years) and Count My Vote / Buy My Vote is proposing to change the system again (just so one former republican governor can get elected to the US Senate)

I really hope the public is smarter than that. In the 1937 case, it was the taxpayers that got stuck with the bill, and the current poorly drafted proposed law would do the same thing again. This time it will cost taxpayers, about 1/2 of it born by smaller counties, almost $1,000,000 and then about $900,000 every two years if Count My Vote / Buy My Vote were to pass.

Someone has to have a pretty big ego to want to buy a state's entire election system (or get Mitt to jump in as well) just to get elected to a specific office. I know, Sen. Hatch spent a ton of money but still faced a primary. At least he worked to win with the current system. 

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? in 1946, after almost 10 years of a direct primary with run off, the media and public demanded the return of the Caucus and Convention System to replace the need for a run off election.

Even the Deseret News in 1946 was specific that they didn't want to just eliminate the run off, as that would turn the power over to money. They wanted that every day people would vote at local meetings. That is what we have.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=VXczAAAAIBAJ&sjid=sXwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6680%2C5376710

Mitt seems to be worried about Tea Party Wins.

Whether you like Sen. Mike Lee or not you should consider the following. The delegates almost eliminated him at convention.

re: Sen. Bennett in 2010. He was not in the top 2 coming out of convention. In fact the more moderate  of the two, Tim Bridgewater was selected by 57% of the delegates in the last round of voting by the delegates. If he had received 60% Tim Bridgewater would have been the party nominee and Mike Lee would have been eliminated.

Sen. Bennett endorsed Tim Bridgewater during the primary, but with voters ticked at TARP and ObamaCare, they went with Mike Lee.

Sen. Mike Lee was the party nominee after the primary

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 have a system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, the wealthy or the famous. This is a good thing, and should be protected.

Don't let the vampire Count My Vote suck you dry

Protect Our Neighborhood Elections, bringing sunlight (and wooden stakes) to Count "My Vote".

Mr. "My Vote" is a lobbyist and a paid political consultant who has turned into a vampire wanting to suck on taxpayers $$. Count "My Vote" will cost taxpayers almost $1 Million and then again almost $1 Million every 2 years.

Count "My Vote" will take away your neighborhood's current ability to help decide who is on the ballot, creating a primary election system with unlimited candidates paying media BIG money to win your vote.

We have a system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, the wealthy or the famous. This is a good thing, and should be protected. Don't let Count "My Vote" suck on your money or your your neighborhood's voice.

To help bring sunlight to Count "My Vote", sign up and donate at:
http://www.neighborhoodelection.org/

Neighborhood Elections

Neighborhood Elections allow candidates who are not famous or wealthy to run for office. Utah chooses candidates based on ideas & strong community values, while other states choose their candidates based on who has spent the most money to reach people with sound-bites, talking points and buzzwords.

Neighborhood Elections ensure that the names on the November ballot have been carefully and fully vetted by elected neighbors that we trust; not by big money special interests.

 Neighborhood Elections have added many civic minded people to the grassroots spirit for which Utah is known. Often these people later become candidates themselves for everything from City Council and School boards to US Congress and Governor.

Neighborhood Elections ensure that our elected officials are held accountable by individual citizens and not special interests. Only in Utah can we find a US Senator in a person’s living room answering questions from everyday people like your elected neighborhood representatives.

Neighborhood Elections force candidates to pay attention to rural areas of Utah. Direct primaries encourage candidates to ignore rural areas and communicate only by paid advertising. A direct primary would create fly-over areas of Utah that will rarely get to meet their candidates face to face. Our Neighborhood Elections benefit everyone in your area, whether they are registered with a party or not. Losing the voice of rural Utah with a direct primary would change our state forever.
Neighborhood Elections ensure that our elected officials are held accountable by individual citizens and not special interests. Only in Utah can we find a US Senator in a person’s living room answering questions from everyday people like your elected neighborhood representatives.

Count My Vote or Swipe my Vote

By state law, the Legislators in each of the counties represented as well as the county commissioners, etc. are to be invited to attend the public meeting for the Count My Vote initiative.

The Count My Vote group has scheduled the two meetings representing the Bear River region - Box Elder, Cache or Rich County along with the Mountain region - Summit, Utah or Wasatch County during monthly Legislature Interim Session.

This month the Legislature Interim Session includes a special session called by the Governor of Utah to fund the National Parks staying open, keeping our rural economies alive and also to provide funding for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC).

The Count My Vote has complained that not everyone can attend their neighborhood elections, and so they have scheduled 4 of their 7 public statewide meetings at noon during the week with 2 of those during a Special Session of the Legislature.

They also scheduled 2 of the required regional public meetings during UEA, so they don't seem to want the UEA teachers or their invited parents to attend their Count My Vote public meetings.

http://www.elections.utah.gov/Media/Default/Initiatives/Notice%20of%20Public%20Hearings.pdf

Update2: It appears the meetings are not cancelled.

Update:
It appears they have seen the light and cancelled the the notice of the 7 public meetings.

http://www.utah.gov/pmn/sitemap/notice/183017.html

Do you like Sen. Mike Lee

Whether you like Sen. Mike Lee or not you should consider the following. The delegates almost eliminated him at convention.

re: Sen. Bennett in 2010. He was not in the top 2 coming out of convention. In fact the more moderate  of the two, Tim Bridgewater was selected by 57% of the delegates in the last round of voting by the delegates. If he had received 60% Tim Bridgewater would have been the party nominee and Mike Lee would have been eliminated.

Sen. Bennett endorsed Tim Bridgewater during the primary, but with voters ticked at TARP and ObamaCare, they went with Mike Lee.

Sen. Mike Lee was the party nominee after the primary

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 have a system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, the wealthy or the famous. This is a good thing, and should be preserved.

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. 

Why Neighborhood Elections in Utah

The purpose of our current neighborhood election system is for parties to nominate their best candidates and not necessarily their richest ones. It provides an opportunity for the average voter to help decide their party's nominee (along with their party officers, platform, constitution and bylaws). 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.

Changes to the 2014 Utah Republican Neighborhood Election Meeting

As you know from 2008 to 2010 neighborhood election meeting attendance doubled. From 2010 to 2012, meeting attendance doubled again. There is hope that in 2014, it will double again and 250,000 will attend. I know that The State GOP has a committee that is working to make sure we don't have the same growth problems for 2014 and that the system can handle the volume of those interested and still allow time to meet candidates and ask questions.

New proposals for 2014 include a better system for check in, including optional preregistration. The ability to optionally pre-file to run to represent your neighbors as well. The meeting will be designed to last for 2 hrs. or less, from 7pm to 9pm. There will be a pre-meeting from 6pm to 7pm to allow you to personally meet candidates to represent your neighborhood that have decided to run and for you to ask one on one questions. Even with large groups, changes to make sure members can agree on questions to ask neighborhood representative candidates with more time to hear from them.

I hope you will come again in 2014 and make the meeting better.

[Update] Can't come that night? CMV has totally ignored and refuses to even admit that the Utah GOP has Same Day Ballots for 2014, which solves the mom with the sick kids or the firefighter that had to work or the military/mission voters.
See: http://fairelectionsutah.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-same-day-ballot-for-neighborhood.html 

 

A Resolution to increase Voter Participation and defend the Utah Neighborhood Election, Caucus and Convention Candidate Nomination Process

The following passed the Utah Republican State Central Committee on September 21, 2013 with none of the members voting against it.
 ------
A Resolution to increase Voter Participation and defend the Utah Neighborhood Election,
Caucus and Convention Candidate Nomination Process

We call upon Citizens of Utah , the Utah Legislature, and Political Parties in Utah to protect the
Utah Neighborhood Election, Caucus and Convention Candidate Nomination Process.

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.

Keep Fair Elections in Utah. Reject the Count My Vote initiative.

Submitted by Fred C. Cox, Salt Lake County

http://www.1888932-2946.ws/ComTool6.0/ckfinder/userfiles/files/A%20Resolution%20to%20increase%20Voter%20Participation%20and%20defend.pdf

If you Can't come to the Neighborhood Caucus Meeting, don't be left out

If you Can't come to the Neighborhood Caucus Meeting, don't be left out.

If someone can't make the caucus, for state wide races, they have as much as a month to tell their delegates, who represent them, who they are supporting. The nomination vote isn't that night.

If someone doesn't make their parent teacher night, does that mean they can't talk to the teachers all year long?

Candidates need volunteers. You can help the candidate you want to win. You can help with yard signs, flyers, phone calls, meetings, etc. 

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.
 
  If we change to an open primary, we are apt to have "flyover" counties and communities. One of the reasons that candidates and elected officials campaign and visit the smaller counties is the Caucus / Convention System. 


I’m not sure if the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote groups has half-a-million or a million-and-a-half it will matter, people are still going to want fair elections. They’re still going to want the ability to have incumbents replaced. They’re still going to want people not to have to be rich or famous to get elected.

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 in time?  Can't we learn from the past?

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.

[Update, the Utah GOP has passed a very narrow Same Day Ballot system]. See:
http://fairelectionsutah.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-same-day-ballot-for-neighborhood.html

 

Fair Elections Utah Help us fight the Count My Vote or Buy My Vote initiative

Fair Elections Utah

We call upon Citizens of Utah , the Utah Legislature, and Political Parties in Utah  to protect the Utah Neighborhood Election, Caucus and Convention Candidate Nomination Process.

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.

Fair Elections Utah. Help us fight the "Count My Vote", or "Buy My Vote" initiative.

Count My Vote vs Fair Elections in Utah who is funding the Buy My Vote group

Major Count My Vote funding so far released. (updated Dec. 31)
Alliance for Good Government
http://disclosures.utah.gov/Search/PublicSearch/FolderDetails/1411317

8/20/2013 Gail Miller   $100,000.00

12/17/2013 James Swartz $25,000.00

12/6/2013 Leslie and Alan Layton $25,000.00

11/22/2013 Ian M. Cumming $25,000.00

11/4/2013 Thomas and Kristin Stockham $25,000.00

10/18/2013 Prime Holdings Insurance Services, Inc. $25,000.00

9/3/2013 Mike Leavitt  $25,000.00

9/3/2013 Rich McKeown $25,000.00

8/26/2013 Garff Enterprises, Inc. $25,000.00

8/26/2013 H. Roger Boyer $25,000.00

8/26/2013 Maccall Management, LLC $25,000.00

8/26/2013 Merit Medical $25,000.00

8/23/2013 Dell Loy Hansen $25,000.00

8/23/2013 Donald and Susan P. Lewon $25,000.00

8/23/2013 John Price $25,000.00

8/22/2013 Kem C. and Carolyn Barnes Gardner $25,000.00

8/20/2013 H. Brent Beesley $25,000.00

8/7/2013 Mark Miller $25,000.00

7/18/2013 Dinesh Patel $25,000.00

7/18/2013 Gary Crocker $25,000.00

9/13/2013 Sandy Chamber of Commerce $24,000.00

12/28/2013 L E Simmons $20,000.00

10/9/2013 Khosrow B. Semnani $15,000.00

8/13/2013 Burton L. and Elaine L. Gordon $12,500.00

12/31/2013 John Miller $10,000.00

12/30/2013 David E. Simmons $10,000.00

12/26/2013 Dan England $10,000.00

12/11/2013 Anne Osborn $10,000.00

8/27/2013 JLS Holdings, LLC $10,000.00

8/12/2013 ThomasArts Holding, Inc. $10,000.00

7/11/2013 Bruce Bastian $10,000.00

7/10/2013 Omar Kader $10,000.00

5/7/2012 Khosrow B. Semnani $10,000.00

4/24/2012 William Nelson Shiebler $10,000.00

4/20/2012 Dell Loy Hansen $10,000.00

4/16/2012 Lunt Capital Management, Inc. $10,000.00

12/13/2013 Gail Miller $9,000.00

11/13/2013 Gail Miller $9,000.00

12/31/2013 Scott Keller $5,000.00

12/20/2013 R. Anthony Sweet $5,000.00

12/4/2013 Thomas Guinney $5,000.00

11/22/2013 Kristen M Fletcher $5,000.00

11/6/2013 Victor and Linda Lund $5,000.00

11/4/2013 E R Dumke, Jr. $5,000.00

10/16/2013 Ezekiel Dumke $5,000.00

9/30/2013 Edward McCartney $5,000.00

11/4/2013 Lonnie M. Bullard $3,000.00

12/31/2013 Clark and Jennifer Whitworth $2,500.00

12/31/2013 Don Stirling $2,500.00

12/30/2013 James Olson $2,500.00

The caucus & 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.

Our problem with voter turnout is it has not kept up with the population increase. 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. Also those moving in and not understanding our system. Utah also has lower turnout because of a dominate party.

If you change the way our Utah primary's work, you could have two republicans in the general election ballot (or two democrats).
 
We have a system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, wealthy or famous. This is a good thing. Keep Fair Elections in Utah. Keep the neighborhood caucus election system.  

Update:
I am glad Gail Miller is keeping involved. Helping children with reading.

It is sad she bought into the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote arguments however. Didn't Chris Cannon have endorsements from Pres. Bush, Mitt Romney and both of the then current US Senators at the time? Jason Chaffetz still won.

re: Sen. Bennett in 2010. He was not in the top 2 coming out of convention. In fact the more moderate Tim Bridgewater was selected by 57% of the delegates in the last round. Mike Lee managed to get 43% and make it to a primary. Sen. Bennett endorsed Tim Bridgewater during the primary, but with voters ticked at TARP and ObamaCare, they went with Mike Lee.
 
You like or don't like Sen. Mike Lee? Well 57% of the delegates didn't pick him to be the nominee. It was during the primary he was selected to be the GOP nominee.
 
Limiting? There were over 120,000 voters that participated in the 2012 Neighborhood Caucus election and meeting. The democratic caucus also had record turnout. People want a say on who shows up on the ballot.
 
The open primary is working so well in 2013 where 15% was considered good? You can't blame that on the caucus system. The one time Utah got rid of the caucus system our turnout went to 10% for a primary that included the US Senate. It was even that low in Salt Lake County. See August of 1946.

For more information see:
http://fairelectionsutah.com/

Fair Elections in Utah vs Count My Vote

The caucus & 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 have a system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, wealthy or famous. This is a good thing.

Our problem with voter turnout is it has not kept up with the population increase. 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. Also those moving in and not understanding our system.

We already have a "bypass" system, filing as an unaffiliated candidate. You go straight to the general. Someone doesn't think they can win if vetted by average citizens asking one on one questions, can run and spend the money. Why should they be a party nominee if they are going to bypass the party?

If you change the way our Utah primary's work, you could have two republicans in the general election ballot (or two democrats).


Bypassing the caucus/convention system will not create more participation. There are 4,000 state delegates and many more county delegates that spend countless hours vetting candidates to be on the ballot. They are selected by those that attend the neighborhood election caucus meeting. The current one-on-one candidate vetting by delegates cannot be done well any other way.

When people realize this Count My Vote initiative will give them less of a chance to participate but give media and power brokers more power, they will not sign any initiative. This is a power grab and it isn't by the neighbors you elect as delegates.

If you are going to run as a Democratic candidate, you have to comply with their rules. If you are going to run as a Republican, you have to comply with their rules. If you don't like those rules, you can run as unaffiliated, independent or as a third-party candidate. Count My Vote is attempting to change all party rules by changing state laws by initiative, thus bypassing the political parties and the Legislature.


Who gets to pick the people that show up on the ballot? It is the voters through the caucus system. The candidates get to decide if they are going to run and each of us vote to have them vetted. We put the best ones we have that volunteered to run on the ballot. One of the reasons we get involved in the caucus system is to have a say as to who is on the ballot.

If we didn't have the system we have, it would be the power brokers that would get to decide. They are the ones trying to get rid of the caucus.

Keep Fair Elections in Utah, keep the caucus and convention system

For more information, see:
http://www.fairelectionsutah.com/

Why Keep the Utah Neighborhood Caucus and Convention System

Why Keep the Utah Neighborhood Caucus and Convention System?

The caucus 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 have a system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, wealthy or famous. This is a good thing.


Our only problem with voter turnout is it has not kept up with the population increase. 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. Some of that are those moving in and not understanding our system.

 If you are going to run as a Democratic candidate, you have to comply with their rules. If you are going to run as a Republican, you have to comply with their rules. If you want to run and not have those rules, you can run as an unaffiliated or independent, or run as a 3rd party candidate. “Count My Vote” is attempting to change all party rules by changing state laws by initiative, thus bypassing the political parties and the Legislature.

We already have a "bypass" system. It is called filing as an unaffiliated candidate. You go straight to the general election. So if Mr. Jowers, or Mr. Leavitt don't think they can win if vetted by average citizens asking one on one questions, they can run that way and spend the money. Why should they be a party nominee if they are going to bypass the party?

When people realize this "Count My Vote initiative will give them less of a chance to participate but give media and power brokers more power, they will not sign any initiative. This is a power grab by Lobbyists, and those that want to run for office but don't believe they can win if vetted by average citizens asking one on one questions.


I ask you to read these two Op-Ed articles:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/56205410-82/state-caucus-system-party.html.csp

and

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765631377/We-need-to-keep-fair-elections-in-Utah.html

We need to coordinate with college and university campuses in Utah so students know where their caucus meeting is, and where Utah residents can register to attend and participate.

 

We could make sure that neighborhood caucus meetings could be done in two hours, and the election results distributed not just to the county and state parties, but to those who missed the caucus, so they can learn who represents them and who to contact to make their views known. Any person who got a babysitter for two hours to attend a caucus meeting should be able to vote within that time frame.

 

The present system does not protect the incumbent, the wealthy or the famous.

Keep fair elections in Utah.

My view We need to keep fair elections in Utah Deseret News

My op-ed for the Deseret News:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765631377/We-need-to-keep-fair-elections-in-Utah.html

That system of discussion is being proposed to be removed from the neighborhood caucus meeting. We would be dropping off votes, but not meeting and discussing candidates and issues. We want neighbors discussing the best candidates and finding ways to improve this state and the nation. That is what is wrong with Washington, D.C. Many don't listen to each other in a meeting. They watch from their offices. We need to change that, not perpetuate it.
Perhaps the "Count My Vote" group should go watch "WALL-E" from Pixar again (the people on the spaceship).
We are talking neighborhood town halls. We aren't just meeting to elect delegates. I believe the Count My Vote group would ruin that.

The present system does not protect the incumbent, the wealthy or the famous. Keep fair elections in Utah.

Utah Caucus and Convention System History

When people realize this "Count My Vote initiative will give them less of a chance to participate but give media and power brokers more power, they will not sign any initiative. This is a power grab by Lobbyists, and those that want to run for office but don't believe they can win if vetted by average citizens asking one on one questions.

Perhaps you should realize that Utah was one of the early states to get rid of the Caucus System. We didn't like the results when we did and voter turnout went down. It appears we changed it to get a governor that wouldn't have won otherwise. It took less than 10 years for everyone to want the Caucus and Convention System or Mass Meetings back. 

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

Who are we going to change our system for this time? The people, or some powerful candidate?

Utah has used neighborhood caucus and convention system since statehood in 1896, as did every other state at the time. 

Utah Governor Herbert B. Maw

At only one time in Utah’s history did the state depart for 10 years.  In 1937, a powerful State Senate President, Democrat Herbert Maw, convinced enough of his colleagues to switch to an open primary.  Some wonder if he had self-serving motives.  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 felt like an open Primary was the ticket to the governorship, and he did win.  But the Change in the system only lasted for a decade.  After disillusionment, Utah restored the Caucus and Convention System. See the Deseret News from 1946:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=VXczAAAAIBAJ&sjid=sXwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6680%2C5376710

Today only seven states still have a caucus and convention system, but Utah is the only state that actually nominates the candidates in the convention that are placed on the ballot.  Other state conventions are endorsing conventions, but the party has little or no control over which candidate/s runs against its endorsed candidate and whether the others even represent the Party platform.

The current system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy or famous. I think that is a good thing.  

Historical research credit: Cherilyn Eagar

Salt Lake Tribune opinion article

The Salt Lake Tribune has published an op-ed about this issue . You can read it at:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/56205410-82/state-caucus-system-party.html.csp



The idea is so everyone that was not at the meeting can find out who represents them and who to contact.

We are talking neighborhood town halls. They aren't just meeting to elect delegates. W believe the Count My Vote group would ruin that.

Understanding the Caucus Process

Understanding the Caucus Process (2012)

 This great video from the Utah Republican Party explains what the neighborhood meeting is all about:



http://youtu.be/N9lVB21hDrc