Great article. Utah will lose it's voice completely if "count my
vote" wins. It will turn elections into a game of who has the biggest bank
account wins. I personally think that would be tragic for our great state!
Great Op-Ed.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.
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
It's better that a few rural people are disenfranchised than tens of
thousands of LDS missionaries and military personnel who cannot participate in
caucus meetings. Can't wait to sign the petition to get rid of the caucus
Good article, Conner. You bring out one more good reason for opposing the
'Count my Vote'initiative.
Sorry Connor, I don't listen to arguments that employ scare tactics while
supporting it with quotes from the opposition on a totally different topic.
If the so-called flyover counties can't attract enough population to gain
political influence, then they should be flyover. The Utah constitution is based
on the principle of one person, one vote. It's unconscionable that they
throw so much weight around in our political process when they represent such
My understanding is, 'count my vote' isn't an effort to jump
straight to primaries, but to require MORE delegates to support a candidate in
the convention in order to avoid a primary. In other words, avoiding radicalism
to hijack elections. Therefore, giving more opportunity to the general public
to vote.By the way, I was a delegate in 2010 but wasn't able to
participate again in 2012 because I was out of town the night of my caucus.
There aren't any 'absentee' votes for a caucus - my sentiments
didn't count. I wanted my vote to count.
chase SL,Re: "My understanding is, 'count my vote'
isn't an effort to jump straight to primaries, but to require MORE
delegates to support a candidate in the convention in order to avoid a
primary"...Your understanding is incorrect. Some have
recommended smaller margins needed to avoid a primary (a good thing) but
that's NOT the count-my-vote initiative. Don't sign it if you think
that's what it is. You have been mislead. Read the initiative.Go to the website and read the initiative language. You will have to dig a
little to find it. But the proposal is NOT to require more delegates.
It's to do away with caucuses and delegates all together and select PARTY
Nominees in a primary election. This is the "General
Description" verbatim... "This initiative amends title 20A of the Utah
code to select political-party nominees through a direct vote of the people in a
regular primary election". Hint... not just more delegate, NO
DELEGATES. And no caucus meetings. So where do you get info about
the candidates??? You guessed it... TV commercials or the news (which
aren't biased at all).
Chase SL,No, they didn't do that. They really never wanted that kind
of change as it wouldn't have helped a 3rd or 4th choice candidate to make
it to a primary. 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?
Great op-ed. I agree. The caucus/convention system works fine, and getting
rid of it would be an unwise, half-baked idea.
I love the way the buy-my-vote people claim "All we care is that every vote
count"... but when it's pointed out that small rural communities votes
will not really count, they say, "Who cares"!IE Irony GuyBountiful, UtahSays, "If the so-called flyover counties
can't attract enough population to gain political influence, then they
should be flyover".Hows that for a "who cares about your
vote" attitude? And he's a "Count-my-vote" guy! (or more an
"anti-Caucus" guy).Does that sound like these people care
about rural Utah's voice? No...The only thing they care about
is getting well funded, well advertised, well coolaid fed, Washington co-opted,
media darling candidates elected.Look at the people who are
promoting it! They are all rich EX-Politicians that want to see to it that
their brand is entrenched and UN-touchable at all cost!They
don't want ANY chance of a non-coopted spoiler sneaking in there...The caucus and convention system preserves rural Utah's voice, just
as our Representative form of government preserves the voice of small States in
Mr. Boyack doesn't seem to understand the difference between
"disenfranchising" someone, and simply making their vote proportional to
actual percentages. I can understand the strategic value the caucus system
represents to a highly-motivated group of activist idealogues, and it's
obvious that's where Connor is coming from. The fact is that the caucus
system allows for a small, motivated minority to have an amount of influence
over the choice of candidate that is wildly disproportionate to that
group's actual representation among the populace. However,
that's a double-edged sword. A process that depends on small,
sparsely-attended meetings that political hobbyists are accustomed to
controlling, are that much easier to "buy out" (due to the small numbers
involved) with the exact sort of "big-money conspiracy" that opponents
of Count My vote fear. I can say confidently I'm as much a
"limit government" guy as any voice in this debate, but I don't
want that being accomplished via a process is at odds with voters' intent.
That only discredits the idea and antagonizes people.
The only way this would be true is if outlying areas are disproportionately more
involved in caucuses than urban areas.
The article causes me to wonder how many candidates for state and federal office
attend the caucus meetings in the rural areas, instead of running around to the
meetings in the cities, were they can run from meeting to meeting and catch
more. No, I am not sure Connor has a point. It may be that the caucus system is
causing a "fly-over" dismissal of rural counties.
The article prompts me to think of caucus night, and how some candidates run
from one caucus to another trying to get in as many as possible. Such is
possible in an urban setting, but not a rural one. A candidate for national or
state office is likely to concentrate on the cities and leave the rural areas
untouched. No, Connor, I cannot agree with your conclusion. It seems it is the
caucus system that creates fly-over zones.
Now that the all our nothing tea party failed. A primary to prevent tea party
bitter tantrum two.