Watch this video from Iron County Republican Party
http://youtu.be/S-WKrrARWcA
Fair Elections Utah Working to improve, but not gut, our neighborhood election caucus system. The Caucus System in Utah is the best way to make sure a grass roots process can work over large amounts of money. It is the only way someone with $100,000 can go against someone with $2,000,000 in election funds. We had a system that did NOT favor the incumbent, wealthy or famous. This was a good thing. SB 54 made things bad. The New Count My Vote is worse.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
The threshold to avoid a primary is a two way sword
The
threshold to avoid a primary is a two way sword. An 85/15 would make it easier for a weak
challenger to get to a primary, but impossible to eliminate the
incumbent without large amounts of money or fame. That was the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote request originally.
Added to that the eliminating of any kind of multiple round and you could
have 6 candidates in the primary, one of which would always be the incumbent.
They couldn't get 85/15, so they next tried 75/25. Almost impossible for an incumbent not to get 25% and make it to a primary. Yes, the incumbent is going to have a harder time getting 75%, but if the goal is more primaries that cost more money, it is one step closer to Buy My Vote or Buy My Ads. Add the elimination of the multiple round and you could get 3 or 4 candidates going to the primary. 70/30 allows up to 3 and again makes it harder to eliminate an incumbent.
Yes, the goal of 60/40 may have been to help the incumbents, but after Jason Chaffetz almost won in convention and Bennett and Gov. Walker lost, those that wanted to protect the incumbents realized they made a mistake with the 60/40 and many for years have wanted to switch it back. Two legislators were eliminated at convention this year. And yes, we still have some primaries, but not as many as we get with 2/3 or 70%.
In 2012 Utah, we have primaries: Hatch/Liljenquist, Dougall/Johnson, Swallow/Reyes, McCartney/Valdez, Okerlund/Painter, Vickers/Anderson, Perry/Galvez, Redd/Butterfield, Anderegg/Moore, Handy/Crowder, Macdonald/Bagley, Sagers/McCoy, Kennedy/Nitta, Muniz/Hendrickson, Stratton/Murray, Christofferson/Kane, Greene/Stevens, Layton/Daw, Nelson/Wright, Westwood/Carling, and Crockett/Winder, to name a few. Not every race had a primary nor should it. Most of those were GOP primaries.
Since 2000, 1/2 of all state wide and congressional contested GOP races have gone to primary. 44 races, 30 were contested and 15 went to primary.
Yes a 2/3 threshold would have made a few more primaries, but the risk of an incumbent losing, or someone rich or famous losing would also go down.
Some that spoke for the 2/3 or 70% may believe what they have said, but I totally disagree and many in the SCC and also many of the delegates disagree as well.
I have always said, 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.
The current system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy or famous. I think that is a good thing. Finely tuned balance. It won today.
(originally posted 18 May 2013)
They couldn't get 85/15, so they next tried 75/25. Almost impossible for an incumbent not to get 25% and make it to a primary. Yes, the incumbent is going to have a harder time getting 75%, but if the goal is more primaries that cost more money, it is one step closer to Buy My Vote or Buy My Ads. Add the elimination of the multiple round and you could get 3 or 4 candidates going to the primary. 70/30 allows up to 3 and again makes it harder to eliminate an incumbent.
Yes, the goal of 60/40 may have been to help the incumbents, but after Jason Chaffetz almost won in convention and Bennett and Gov. Walker lost, those that wanted to protect the incumbents realized they made a mistake with the 60/40 and many for years have wanted to switch it back. Two legislators were eliminated at convention this year. And yes, we still have some primaries, but not as many as we get with 2/3 or 70%.
In 2012 Utah, we have primaries: Hatch/Liljenquist, Dougall/Johnson, Swallow/Reyes, McCartney/Valdez, Okerlund/Painter, Vickers/Anderson, Perry/Galvez, Redd/Butterfield, Anderegg/Moore, Handy/Crowder, Macdonald/Bagley, Sagers/McCoy, Kennedy/Nitta, Muniz/Hendrickson, Stratton/Murray, Christofferson/Kane, Greene/Stevens, Layton/Daw, Nelson/Wright, Westwood/Carling, and Crockett/Winder, to name a few. Not every race had a primary nor should it. Most of those were GOP primaries.
Since 2000, 1/2 of all state wide and congressional contested GOP races have gone to primary. 44 races, 30 were contested and 15 went to primary.
Yes a 2/3 threshold would have made a few more primaries, but the risk of an incumbent losing, or someone rich or famous losing would also go down.
Some that spoke for the 2/3 or 70% may believe what they have said, but I totally disagree and many in the SCC and also many of the delegates disagree as well.
I have always said, 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.
The current system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy or famous. I think that is a good thing. Finely tuned balance. It won today.
(originally posted 18 May 2013)
Fair Elections in Utah Salt Lake Tribune
The Salt Lake Tribune has published an op-ed that I wrote. 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. I believe the Count My Vote group would ruin that.
No, I didn't pick the photo that they used.
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. I believe the Count My Vote group would ruin that.
No, I didn't pick the photo that they used.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Can the Neighborhood Election Caucus and Conventions be improved
Can the Neighborhood Election Caucus and Conventions be improved? Yes!
We need to make sure the Utah neighborhood election caucus system is set up so it could be done in 2 hrs. and we get the election results, not just back to the county and state parties, but to those that missed it so they can still contribute and let their elected delegates and precinct leaders know what they think. The person that got a babysitter for 2 hrs to attend their neighborhood caucus should be able to vote
We need to coordinate with college and university campuses in Utah to make sure students know where a caucus meeting is, and Utah residents can register to attend and participate. Perhaps we should increase the number of locations the neighborhood caucuses are on college and university campuses. We can add another hundred thousand new caucus attendees in 2014.
We need to make sure the Utah neighborhood election caucus system is set up so it could be done in 2 hrs. and we get the election results, not just back to the county and state parties, but to those that missed it so they can still contribute and let their elected delegates and precinct leaders know what they think. The person that got a babysitter for 2 hrs to attend their neighborhood caucus should be able to vote
We need to coordinate with college and university campuses in Utah to make sure students know where a caucus meeting is, and Utah residents can register to attend and participate. Perhaps we should increase the number of locations the neighborhood caucuses are on college and university campuses. We can add another hundred thousand new caucus attendees in 2014.
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Keep it at 60 Percent
The 60% works, allowing a shot of a challenger to eliminate an incumbent and yet requires a challenger to be a strong candidate.
Based on the party released sheets since 2000 for state wide races or congressional races, At 60%, threshold to avoid a primary, 1/2 of contested races went to primary. If at 2/3 threshold to avoid a primary, 67% of contested races go to a primary and at 70% threshold to avoid a primary, 70% of the races go to primary. The last 2 numbers do not have to match, but they ended up doing so.
They tracked 44 races, 14 of which were not contested for the nominee. We realize it is only 5 or 6 contested races difference, but when you are looking at 30 contested races, a change of 5 is 17%.
70% would not have helped 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.
Sen. Hatch just barely missed eliminating Dan Liljenquist by hitting just under the 60% threshold to avoid a primary, and Jason Chaffetz just missed eliminating Chris Cannon by hitting just under 60% threshold to avoid a primary.
Both races went to primaries. The 60% line works fine. Raising it decreases the chance of eliminating an incumbent, and we get weaker challengers.
It was the caucus system that got Sen. Hatch, Sen. Bennett, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., Gov. Leavitt & Lt. Gov. Walker, etc. elected in the first place. The system is fine when they win, but if any of them lose, it is bad?
The democrats in SLCo. just added an additional vote at the end of their conventions to see if they can avoid a primary. They have no interest in the initiative passing and have been vocal not to support it.
The current system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy or famous. We think that is a good thing.
Based on the party released sheets since 2000 for state wide races or congressional races, At 60%, threshold to avoid a primary, 1/2 of contested races went to primary. If at 2/3 threshold to avoid a primary, 67% of contested races go to a primary and at 70% threshold to avoid a primary, 70% of the races go to primary. The last 2 numbers do not have to match, but they ended up doing so.
They tracked 44 races, 14 of which were not contested for the nominee. We realize it is only 5 or 6 contested races difference, but when you are looking at 30 contested races, a change of 5 is 17%.
70% would not have helped 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.
Sen. Hatch just barely missed eliminating Dan Liljenquist by hitting just under the 60% threshold to avoid a primary, and Jason Chaffetz just missed eliminating Chris Cannon by hitting just under 60% threshold to avoid a primary.
Both races went to primaries. The 60% line works fine. Raising it decreases the chance of eliminating an incumbent, and we get weaker challengers.
It was the caucus system that got Sen. Hatch, Sen. Bennett, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., Gov. Leavitt & Lt. Gov. Walker, etc. elected in the first place. The system is fine when they win, but if any of them lose, it is bad?
The democrats in SLCo. just added an additional vote at the end of their conventions to see if they can avoid a primary. They have no interest in the initiative passing and have been vocal not to support it.
The current system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy or famous. We think that is a good thing.
Fair Elections Utah
Working to improve, but not gut, our neighborhood election caucus
system.
The Caucus System in Utah is the best way to make sure a grass roots process can work over large amounts of money. It is the only way someone with $100,000 can go against someone with $2,000,000 in election funds. We have a system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, wealthy or famous. This is a good thing.
We appreciate the grassroots nature of this process, with neighbors gathering to discuss political issues and candidates.
There were about 120,000 republicans in Utah that went to the neighborhood caucus elections in 2012 to elect the 4000 State Delegates. Add to those numbers the democrats and the primary elections. Certainly the municipal elections didn't do any better in voter representation.
Most people who want the caucus system changed, there are exceptions, are frustrated that they don't have as much power as people who show up to the neighborhood election caucus meetings. It doesn't take money; you just have to show up.
Bypassing the Caucus / Convention System will NOT create more participation. Approx. one out of every 4 or 5 republicans attended their neighborhood election caucus meeting this last year. One in every three told a KSL poll they were involved or attending. There are 4000 state delegates that spend countless hours vetting candidates to be on the ballot. They are selected by those that attend the neighborhood election caucus meeting. You just have to attend.
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.
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. This "Count My Vote initiative is an attempt to change the party rules by state law, bypassing the party and is even an attempt to change the law bypassing the legislature.
It doesn't mean things can't be better, but this isn't the way to do it.
We need to make sure the Utah neighborhood election caucus system is set up so it could be done in 2 hrs. and we get the election results, not just back to the county and state, but to those that missed it so they can still contribute and let their elected delegates and precinct leaders know what they think. The person that got a babysitter for 2 hrs to attend their neighborhood caucus should be able to vote
We need to coordinate with college and university campuses in Utah to make sure students know where a caucus meeting is, and Utah residents can register to attend and participate. Perhaps we should increase the number of locations the neighborhood caucuses are on college and university campuses. We can add another hundred thousand new caucus attendees in 2014.
Fair Elections Utah. Help us fight the "Count My Vote", or "Buy My Vote" initiative.
The Caucus System in Utah is the best way to make sure a grass roots process can work over large amounts of money. It is the only way someone with $100,000 can go against someone with $2,000,000 in election funds. We have a system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, wealthy or famous. This is a good thing.
We appreciate the grassroots nature of this process, with neighbors gathering to discuss political issues and candidates.
There were about 120,000 republicans in Utah that went to the neighborhood caucus elections in 2012 to elect the 4000 State Delegates. Add to those numbers the democrats and the primary elections. Certainly the municipal elections didn't do any better in voter representation.
Most people who want the caucus system changed, there are exceptions, are frustrated that they don't have as much power as people who show up to the neighborhood election caucus meetings. It doesn't take money; you just have to show up.
Bypassing the Caucus / Convention System will NOT create more participation. Approx. one out of every 4 or 5 republicans attended their neighborhood election caucus meeting this last year. One in every three told a KSL poll they were involved or attending. There are 4000 state delegates that spend countless hours vetting candidates to be on the ballot. They are selected by those that attend the neighborhood election caucus meeting. You just have to attend.
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.
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. This "Count My Vote initiative is an attempt to change the party rules by state law, bypassing the party and is even an attempt to change the law bypassing the legislature.
It doesn't mean things can't be better, but this isn't the way to do it.
We need to make sure the Utah neighborhood election caucus system is set up so it could be done in 2 hrs. and we get the election results, not just back to the county and state, but to those that missed it so they can still contribute and let their elected delegates and precinct leaders know what they think. The person that got a babysitter for 2 hrs to attend their neighborhood caucus should be able to vote
We need to coordinate with college and university campuses in Utah to make sure students know where a caucus meeting is, and Utah residents can register to attend and participate. Perhaps we should increase the number of locations the neighborhood caucuses are on college and university campuses. We can add another hundred thousand new caucus attendees in 2014.
Fair Elections Utah. Help us fight the "Count My Vote", or "Buy My Vote" initiative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)