Hope he does veto. The Legislature is always playing shenanigans to destroy the
citizens right to iniative petition.
Thank you Governor! Let's allow the Count the Vote Petition to play out
without the Legislature blocking the effort before it starts.
Thank you, Governor Herbert, for supporting the Citizens' Initiative
Process! The legislators seem a little too eager to short-circuit
the initiative process. Let the people vote rather than cutting them out of the
It seems like the Republican Party in Utah is determined to drive out anyone
that isn't to right of Gengis Khan. As a registered
Republican, I want to see a primary system so that the far right folks are not
so easily elected. Time to vote most of these people out of office.
We have a liberal democrat in our town collecting signatures for Count My Vote.
She tells everyone that their vote should count. What she doesn't tell
unsuspecting conservatives is that changing the caucus system will poison our
elections with out of state lobbyists and big money. No longer will
a stay at home mom with some good ideas, an education, and talent be able to
afford running for state office via the caucus system. Only the politically
connected, with huge out of state money backers will be able to afford a made
for television election. And I have to ask myself why is this
liberal democrat in our town so energized about changing the way republicans
select their candidates? Its simple. A liberal democrat candidate will likely
fail. But a liberal republican, her positions hidden behind millions in out of
state money, can win. Liberal democrats are foaming at the mouth to
get this on the ballot. Its the only chance for a liberal progressive agenda in
Utah. Count My Vote will do the same thing to Utah elections that the Trojan
horse did to Troy. It will destroy conservatism from the inside.
A good move by Herbert. The good ol' boys club think they are
above the simple citizens that don't know what is good for them.
HUGE brownie points to Gov. Herbert. Power to the people folks, power to the
It would appear to me that Mr. Bramble wants to have an almost guarantee that
incumbents will always get reelected. The way our caucus system
works, you need to convince a small number of people that you are worthy to
continue to serve. That small number stays informed as to what you are doing. It
is very difficult to put something over on those people.All you need
to do is look at former Senator Bennett. He went to the left of what people
thought he needed to do to adequately represent the people of Utah. The caucus
delegates chose Mike Lee to be on the ballot. Senator Hatch almost met the same
fate, but he was able to convince enough people that he deserved to be on the
ballot as the representative of the Republican party. Keep it the
way it is to insure that we continue to have good candidates chosen to represent
the people of the State of Utah.
Does anyone else see the sad irony off the same people that clamer on about
letting the voice of the people stand when it comes to amendment 3 trying to
silence the peoples voice before they have a chance to speak on this issue?
Thank you Governor Herbert! The only way we can have elections that reflect the
will of the majority is to have primary elections. The caucus system is
outdated and is supported by vested interests that have no desire to reflect the
will of the majority in their legislation. Why should anyone be elected by a
small minority of the population (i.e. a few delegates) It is time to change!
Dr. G,I disagree that going to a direct primary will eliminate
"common" citizens from running for office any more than the current
financial requirements winnow candidates down. It is expensive to run a
campaign. Candidates must either fund their own, or seek financial help from
friends, neighbors, and businesses. Outside groups also play into campaigns.How does a direct primary change what is currently happening?A direct primary would simply open up the voting process to all voters, rather
than to the relatively few who bother to go to their caucus meetings.The elites and party executives criticize those who don't go to caucus
meetings and demean them, charging that they are ignorant and ill-informed to
vote anyway. I disagree. Make the vote as easy as
possible for as many as possible.
Is the Governor willing to spend the money for "run off" elections? In
a primary with more than two candidates, there is a very real possibility that
no one would have a majority of the votes cast. It seems only fair that the
person representing the Republican Party should be required to have a majority
of the votes cast. In a hotly contested race with a bunch of equally liked
candidates and one "weirdo", the "weirdo" could easily receive
the most votes cast for any of the candidates simply because the other
candidates did not have "fringe" support. Would that "weirdo"
represent the mind and will of the voters if he received 17% of the votes and no
other candidate received more than 15%? A "run off" election (or
several run off elections) would ensure that the candidate appearing on the
ballot in the general election had the support from a majority of Republicans.
The winner of a direct primary would be the candidate with the most money behind
him, and the most support from the elites in the party, (who by the way, directs
big campaign donors to the candidate of THEIR choice).Results of a
direct primary are determined solely and almost completely on television ads
(that say absolutely nothing of substance) oh, I forgot all the banners and
signs that they stick on everything that doesn't move and some things that
do.In a caucus primary even I (a nobody)COULD mount a campaign. I
only need a few hundred bucks and have good communication skills and a
marketable platform. I am allowed to try to convince people to vote for me, not
based on the amount of money that I have, but the skills I possess.Whats' wrong with that? The incumbent, whoever they are, have the same
capability that I do. However his "incumbency" CAN (and sometimes is)a
deterent to him being re-nominated based on how well he represented his
constituency.Sometimes incumbents don't like those rules.
Thats' because they feel "entitled" to the nomination. Thats' really what this argument is all about.
Somehow we've forgotten that there are thousands of citizens in this
wonderful state who would all do an admirable job representing us in the state
and national legislatures. Maybe we haven't forgotten, as much as
we've been programmed to believe that only the big money candidates can do
the job and that the little guy somehow lacks the polish, refinement, education,
or clout to be successful. My how far we've fallen since our
founding!Count My Vote is another step in the wrong (big money, keep
the little guy out, get the candidate who can be influenced by large donors)
direction. Count My Vote is a hail marry by liberal democrats to get their
liberal "republican" candidates elected in the republican nomination
process and leave Utah voters with two liberal choices. Count My
Vote is a terrible idea.
If you felt that tremor it was another fracture in the Utah Republican Party.
This is another great moment for a Utah Republican who is not on the extreme far
right. It looks like Governor Herbert is going to align himself with the
moderate republicans and allow Becky Lockhart to align with the far right. Go
Primary elections would fix Utah in so many ways- by putting power in the hands
of the people. Those in power due to the Caucus system want to make sure it
stays around- no matter what the people want- big shock. After all, many of our
legislators in Utah don't believe they are representatives, but our leaders
who know better than we do- I've personally heard several of them say this
exact thing. They believe a Republic means they are elected leaders and
don't have to do the will of the people.
There are plenty of examples where candidates with less money emerge victorious
in primaries (e.x. Chris Cannon vs. Jason Chaffetz). However, it's just a
fact of life that no matter what system we have moving forward, money WILL
ALWAYS follow the candidate who has the likest chance to win. This isn't
about money = opportunity. This is about broadening the voice of the people and
having their CONCERNS addressed in the election process. I
don't want to list all the delegates' bizarre 'most important
issues', BUT I can't help myself, so I will only mention this one
fact. The #7 most important issue for delegates last year was, 'ascending
from the Union', o yeah, #11 'education'. Priorities are out of
line... It would be comical if it weren't so sad. Our
legislators are trying to save their bacon. Power to the people folks, power to
To those who think that money is not a factor in the caucus system: go to a
state nominating convention. Large amounts of $$ are spent there by the
candidates. Same with a county nominating convention. I support
the concept of a primary system where each person can vote for the candidate of
his choice. The caucus system diminishes political participation. It is great
for delegates who then get to vote, but is nothing, no political activity until
November, for the rest of us.
"Liberal democrats are foaming at the mouth to get this on the
ballot."For the most part, no. I'm a not-so-liberal
democrat (a member of the Salt Lake County Democratic Party Central Committee,
actually), and I can tell you first-hand that, for the most part, the democratic
party executive officers don't want the CMV initiative to succeed any more
than the republican party officers do. The activist liberal fringe likes the
ability to control the candidate selection process afforded by the
caucus/convention system just about as much as the tea party/Eagle Forum crowd
does.Personally, I favor broad enfranchisement.
Mr. sherlock holmes,I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
What you should be advocating for is campaign finance reform. This is my
problem with those who say this to being a MONEY issue. This is about balanced
representation of those we select to our affiliated parties nomination. We need
the people's voice to be heard in the selection process. I've been to
too many caucus meetings to ignore the fact that only 25% of GOP delegates are
women. Things like this drive me crazy about our current system. This is not about money. Its about fair representation. Power to the people
folks, power to the people.
Thank you Governor Herbert! Dr. G, Dr. Coach, and 1conservative have it exactly
right! I have been a delegate for many years and the incumbents hate the fact
that they could be unseated if they do not follow what is best for Utah. The
caucus system is not a perfect system, but it gives you far better candidates
than you would get in a primary election. The present caucus system is based on
education and information - sure it's a small portion of the electorate,
but these are the people who care to research the candidates and to be informed
of their views. The delegates demand accountability of the candidates, and
slick TV ads, billboards and brochures do not work on them. Look behind the
money for CMV and you will see exactly who is trying to change the system. The
caucus system has served us well for many years with great candidates (w/a few
exceptions). Governor Herbert says that he supports the current caucus system,
but he respects the right of the people to attempt the Count My Vote initiative.
Governor Herbert is a good man.
To chase SLNeither Count My Vote nor the caucus system is about
campaign finance reform. Let's leave that for another day. This issue is about moving toward one vote for one person. And not having a
caucus system with elected delegates. It's about electing candidates, not
I keep hearing look at the money behind CMV, could somebody share who that is
that I should be so fearful?I look at the groups that are funding
and or pushing status quo, the Sutherland Institute, Eagle Forum, Freedom Works,
and I am more concerned about their money and influence than I am about Norma
Bangeter,Gail Miller, and Mike Leavitt.
Either system is susceptible to corruption if primaries are of the
"Open" type where anyone can vote in either party primary.It seems
clear to me the best solution to this and many other political issues is simple-
TERM LIMITS for all public officials (they have long since lost the title of