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.
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.
