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.Based on the state gop released stats since 2000 for state
wide or congressional races, at 60%, threshold to avoid a primary, 1/2 of
contested races went to primary. If at 2/3, 67% of contested races go to a
primary and at 70%, 70% of the races go to primary.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%, and Jason Chaffetz just missed eliminating Chris Cannon by hitting just
under 60%.The current system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy
or famous. I think that is a good thing.
Governor Osmond, anyone? I'll cast the vote right now.
The arguments used to lower the threshold on primaries from 70% to 60% are as
valid today as they were when they changed. Now, an argument that suggests more
people will be involved in the process if we raise the threshold from 60% to 70%
or to 66% has no solid basis whatsoever and is actually absurd. Raising the
threshold will not include more people, it will just cost more money fighting
primaries and hence, the person with the biggest war chest will win. So we will get rid of smaller pocket people running and only have big pocket
politicians. Wrong direction!!!
How do you improve on a system that was faulty and corrupt from the beginning?
A bad olive branch will be a bad olive branch no matter how many
times you graft it. A pig is still a pig no matter how much lipstick and makeup
you put on it.
Sounds like a good plan. Keeps the good part (common people making the
decisions instead of political power brokers), but addresses some of the
problems (how the caucuses operate). There are some problems, but it seems odd
that the people most vocal about doing away with it entirely are Democrats, who
would never be caught dead at a Neighborhood Caucus Meeting.I'm
not going to tell Democrats how to do their business. I don't know why
they think it's their responsibility to tell Republicans how to do theirs.
But you would think if Democrats were so concerned about big-busineses,
rich-people, and party-politicians controling the process... they would not just
let their rich party insiders pick THEIR candidates. I'm just sayin...
what they have isn't perfect either. So why insist that Republicans turn
the primary candidate selection process over to THEIR rich party insiders???I like common working folks like me and my neighbors selecting who will
represent the party in the primary, not party officials who can be bought off
with quid-pro-quo offers more easily than a divers group of common people from
each neighborhood in the state.
If only there was some sort of system where every eligible voter could have a
voice in picking candidates. If only there was some State funded mechanism that
could be used to actually select a candidate. Something like a ... primary
election.I have always been bothered that because I don't elect
to register with the Republican Party I cannot vote in their primary, but they
have no problem taking my tax dollars to support their election.Do
whatever process you want within your party, but when it comes time for a
taxpayer funded election, every voter should be able to cast a vote.
Darrel,Do you mean having a primary election to pick the primary election
candidates? Kindof a pre-primary Primary??? A system no political party I
know of anywhere in America uses?That may be a good idea IF the
State (meaning you and me) would fund it (becasue the State doesnt' have
ANY money not collected from you and me).So... you want ANOTHER
primary... with polling locations staffed and opereated in every neighborhood in
every city everywhere in the state to vote for who they want to see on the REAL
primary in a few months (also funded by tax payers). And this EXTRA Primary
will be for every position (from local school board to State Senator)? Imagine
what the Pre_Primary turnout would be when we get ~15% to the REAL Primary.
And nobody knows who the candidates are yet.This would change how
campaigns are financed, requiring more candidates to raise money earlier to
start advertising earlier so voters would know who the non-encumbant candidates
are before the PRE_Primary election. Small campaigns would forced to spend
huge $$$ (sometimes from their own pocket) and not even make the REAL Primary.
@2bitsThat's not quite what I'm saying. The article was
calling for a way in which more republicans could select their candidate.Whatever means they choose, I really don't care. However, if State
funding is to be used, it should be open to all voters.
Darrel.You are aware that Democrats don't do this. No State I know
of does this. No Party I know of does this. In every system I
know of the first opportunity where EVERYBODY gets to vote is the Primary
Election.Republicans and Democrats in Utah have a Primary Election
(they are on the same day, in the same room, use the same voting machines, use
the same staff, same facilities, etc). Why should just Republicans conduct
ANOTHER Primary before the real Primary??? I don't get it! Do you want the Democrats to conduct a primary election before THEIR primary
election? They do the same thing (their primary candidates are selected at
their Convention). The only difference is that the Demorat convention is made
up of DNC big-wigs... and the Republican Convention is made up of neighborhood
delegates. Why is that so terrible?I can't understand why
uninformed people keep saying "Republicans need a Primary where every vote
counts". They already have a Primary where every vote counts just like the
Democrats! These people are probably in the 80% that don't vote in the
primary. How could they... They don't even know we have one!
@2 bitsAgain, I probably didn't make my point well enough, and
it in all fairness it was a bit off topic, and that probably is the root of the
confusion.I don't care how the republicans or democrats select
their candidates. I really don't.What I do care about though
are the Primaries using State money and restricting it to party members. Unless
things have changed, and they may well have, to vote in the Republican Primary
one must be a registered republican. The democrats do it differently, I do not
have to be a registered democrat, but I cannot belong to another party. I feel
this is better, but the ideal solution would be if I'm paying for your
party to select a candidate I should get a say.If either or both
parties developed a system that had no primary, or a completely privately
financed election, I would be fine with that. Just don't ask me to pay and
not allow me to vote.
Get rid of the caucus system. It smacks of the liberal attitude that only a few
'in the know' have the right to control the ignorant masses. I shall
vote against my state representatives currently in power until voters have the
right to directly elect their own candidates.
Darrel,FYI... tax payers don't pay for either party's
convention. The State pays for and administers BOTH party's Primary
Election (it's the law).I tend to agree it's silly for
Republicans to only allow Republicans to vote in their primary. I think I see
why they think it's needed, but I think it's silly. I have ZERO
interest in voting in the Democrat Primary (even though I could). I'm
always befuddled by people who are not Republican... but insist THEY should be
able to pick the Republican party's candidates. That makes no sense to
me.Maybe I'll vote in the Democrat primary next time just to
see why people want to do it so bad.About the only candidate I could
whole_heartedly vote FOR in the Demo_primary would be Jim Matheson. But
he's run unopposed every time except once (good example of Party big_wigs
picking your candidate for you... without a SINGLE popular vote). He not only
got to the PRIMARY without you voting... He got to the GENERAL election
unopposed (no vote needed)... hmmm.... but nobody cares.
One of the principles of those wanting to gut the neighborhood election caucus
meeting and convention system we have in Utah, was this: " A system that
provides inherent advantages to those who are incumbent, wealthy or famous is
not acceptable."The problem is their proposals would do exactly
that.The Caucus System in Utah is the best way to make sure grass
roots movements 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.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.Bypassing the
Caucus / Convention System will NOT create more participation. 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.The current system does not protect
the incumbent, wealthy or famous. I think that is a good thing.