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