Count My Vote demanded taking the meeting out of the meeting, raising the
threshold to avoid a primary, getting rid of multiple round balloting at
conventions and making sure the changes were made in to law.Those
changes were not made the way CMV wanted.However the concerns
raised, about the fire fighter that couldn't get off work or the mom with
the sick kids, changes were made. CMV has generally ignore those changes.Our Current System elected Mr. Bennett 3 times, more times than he said
he would run. Under Count My Vote, the Unaffiliated would still not
be able to vote in a GOP primary. Something they have forgot to tell most of
those signing. Lines 305 to 308. I have issues with SB 54, but one
thing it does do is something Count My Vote doesn't do and that is allow
the Unaffiliated to vote in a GOP primary.
At only one time for 10 years in Utah 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.
Obsession alert! Bailout Bob was unseated by the caucus system, and should not
be regarded as an objective voice.
@nateDon't forget Chris Cannon
According to a Deseret News news article, Count My Vote have been accused of
misrepresenting the petition. In other words, some, perhaps many of those who
signed the petition, signed it under false pretenses. Some were told that it
was about schools. Some signed unattended petitions that had been left on
counters. (Verification of signature is required.)Now every
signature on that petition will have to be checked. Every person who signed
will have to be contacted and asked how the petition was presented to them and
whether anyone checked their I.D. before they signed.At the very
least, Count My Vote will end up in court. It might be a good idea to start the
process over, this time following the rules - exactly.
Mike,Key word is ACCUSED. There is no doubt that those who want to
maintain the caucus system will use every available trick and strategy to try
and prevent this from coming to a vote. Senator Bramble has already done that
in the Utah State Legislature. Don't you think it is a little
curious though that so many power brokers in the state are afraid to let the
people vote on this initiative?
Fred,Are you claiming that the Deseret News is corrupt, that it
filed a false story, that it corrupted the facts?I don't agree
with you. I trust the Deseret News.
I don't care if Bob Bennett was voted out under the current system. He is
absolutely right that the people have a right to decide. Let the process play
out. If put to a vote, the current system would be defeated easily. The only
people fighting desperately to keep it are party-insiders and their cronies (ie
those who benefit from the consolidation of power the current system produces).
Does anyone know if the "buy my vote" signature gatherers are paid? 2 different times I have been asked to sign their petition and they
didn't look like the types of citizens you would usually see gathering
signatures. NEITHER of these folks looked (or talked)like informed citizens who
were supporting an issue.They didn't seem to know much about
the issue either - but I didn't "press" them.I'm
GLAD to see people working, but are they being pd. by the hour or the signature?
I am pleased Sen. Bennett was voted out. As a result the establishment, RINO
folks want to get even by changing the system.
Trey, I'm no party insider. I've never been a delegate, and I
don't hold any office in the state. I'm an average citizen. But
I've actually read the CMV petition and 1) it doesn't do what they say
it will do and 2) it creates more problems than it solves. Have you read it or
are you relying on the media to tell you what it's about?The
caucus system isn't perfect, but it's better than CMV. SB54 isn't
perfect either, but it seems to me to be a good compromise.
Senator Bennett is right. Let the process be completed without interference
from the legislature. Count My Vote was only needed when the party refused to
listen to legitimate concerns. I have been a delegate numerous times since 1988
and know the weakness in the process. I am one who took the petition around.
Citizens need the opportunity to be listened to; not ignored. When Senator
Bennett ran his last time, the moderate voice of the party was left out of the
process and common citizens had their voice taken away by not being able to vote
whether Senator Bennett should remain in office or not. Polls indicate that he
would have made it through a primary election because the general citizens of
the state still supported him. It was only the far right of the party that
unseated him because he dared to be a statesman who could reach across the isle
to get something done. Now we are stuck with Lee who has been a disaster.
The rich and powerful did not respect the petition process when they overturned
California's Prop 187, an immigration enforcement measure, back in 1994.They did not respect the petition process in Colorado when they kept an
immigration enforcement measure from even getting on the ballot.And
they are not respecting it now as they seek to overturn gay marriage bans passed
in over 30 states."Respect the process" - unless it's
not in the best interests of the rich and powerful. Funny how that works.Count My Vote is being backed by all the richest, most powerful people
in the state. They are not doing so for charitable reasons, and only a fool
would assume they are.
"Does anyone know if the 'buy my vote' signature gatherers are
paid?"Yes, they are paid - probably by the signature. The result
is that they will say and do anything to get you to sign the petition. One lady
gathering signatures told me that the rich people controlled the current
caucus-convention system and that CMV would change that. I asked her why all the
rich people were backing it. She didn't have a clue.
I am a registered Republican, I was not a delegate in 2010. I wanted to vote
for Bob Bennett. I never got the chance. My voice was not heard because of the
current system. I want the system changed, so I support Count My Vote.Our present system makes no sense. Why do we use the caucus system to
nominate officials to every office, (local, state, and federal) in the land
except for one -- President of the United States. For that office, we have a
primary. Why do we use a primary for the most important office of all -- could
it be that it is important that every voter has a say in whom the party
nominates? I think so! So why don't we use the same logic for every other
Political Parties are private institutions. The only right way to change their
make up is with members of their own parties. The government should not impose
upon the parties through SB 54 or the ballot initiates. This is against the
parties constitutional rights. Bennett would not support the Hatch Flag
amendment because he believed it infringed upon ones freedom of speech and
expression, but now it is ok to infringed upon the private parties rights.
I have been a county GOP delegate twice. I attend my caucus meeting every
election cycle.I signed the County My Vote petition. The woman that
brought the petition to me was not paid to do so. She is a concerned citizen
that has lived in Davis County her entire life.
The legislature should allow the petition to proceed. If they pass legislation
that nullifies the petition process I will exercise my vote, my feet, and my
campaign contributions against any legislator that so votes.
Wjalden, you're badly misinformed. Count My Vote signature gatherers are
overwhelmingly volunteers. The organization has a few full-time employees for
administrative purposes and so forth, but the people actually out there with the
booklets are not being paid. (Either that, or you're right, I've been
lied for five months, and somebody owes me a few hundred bucks for the
signatures I've collected so far... A kid asked me once if I could get him
a summer job. I told him I could as long as he wasn't expecting the kind of
job where you actually got paid.)And you're claiming that the
rich and powerful that don't respect the petition process are the same rich
and powerful supporting Count My Vote? Did I read that right?Mike
Richards: The Deseret News has never reported that the signatures were invalid
or that an investigation will be held. They reported that Protect Our
Neighborhood Elections is claiming there are invalid signatures and that they
have requested an investigation. Questioning PONE's motives and rationale
isn't even close to the same thing as accusing DN of lying- drop the straw
Mike,Not sure how you arrived at the idea that I was accusing the
Deseret News of lying. The Deseret News reported the accusations against Count
My Vote. My point was these are accusations, Protect Our Neighborhood Elections
has not prevailed in a court of law, so at this point, they are doing nothing
more than make accusations. But at the same time I certainly don't take
everything I read in the Deseret News or any other publication as the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth. Most reasonable people would admit that
any one "reporting the news" brings certain biases to the table.I have carried Count My Vote booklets and helped acquire signatures, and
nobody has offered to pay me a dime. Having said that, what difference would it
make if people were payed to collect signatures? Would that be the evil outside
influence that the caucus crowd is so afraid of? If they are so afraid of
outside influence, why not distance themselves from groups such as freedom works
who spent significant money at the republican convention to influence caucus
voters? Don't be so afraid of letting people vote on this
I respect the petition process. But many CMV petitioners are using deceptive
practices to get people to sign their petition.As most people
know... I'm not totally convinced CMV is an improvement. My wife was
recently convinced by a very persuasive person at our local library to sign the
petition. Later we talking about both sides... and she decided she didn't
really want it, but hadn't understood what it was about.They
really aren't informing people on the actual changes to the process that
are being proposed. They only play on the emotions Americans rightly feel
about their sacred right to vote.===We do have the right
to vote. We already have the right to vote (in the general election). But we
do not have the right to pick the candidate a party we disagree with will
support, fund, and campaign for in the general election.We should
use our right to vote. Only ~50% of us actually vote in the general election.
Only 6% voted in the most recent municipal primary. Start there IF you
respect the right to vote.IMO party members should pick who they
will support and campaign for. Not the opposition.
"Wjalden, you're badly misinformed. Count My Vote signature gatherers
are overwhelmingly volunteers."Not according to Bob
Bernick's article at utahpolicy.com, and not according to the lady I asked
yesterday at the library. Bernick wrote: "The money [raised for CMV] will be
spent to hire professional petition signature gatherers and run a sophisticated
ad campaign convincing voters to adopt the ballot initiative."UtahPolicy.com is owned by Lavarr Webb, who supports CMV. I doubt he would
misrepresent CMV in a way that would make it look bad.
Bob is still ticked off, and it shows. He should retire.
I really don't see any result that would have changed drastically IF CMV
rules were adopted earlier. Or any evidence any result will significant change
in the future.Bob Bennett still would have lost (and he would lose
again if he ran today).The Hatch election outcome would also not
changed.Name one election you think WOULD have changed... And some
evidence Please!===I think the most significant variance
illustrated in the whole episode was that the Convention put Lillianquist #1,
and Lee #2 (Bennett #3) and the PEOPLE selected LEE #1 (in both the primary
election and the general election).So much for the bleating from the
CMV people that somebody stacked the caucuses and convention for Lee (hint, the
convention gave Lee LESS support than the general public did).===Hatch outspent his opponent by more than 10-to-1. He would have won
that election if the convention were abolished or not as well. And he would win
again under CMV rules (probably by a larger margin).===CMV won't change anything. It just guarantees the candidate with the
most money (and advertising) wins. Which already happens enough.
"I really don't see any result that would have changed drastically IF
CMV rules were adopted earlier...Name one election you think WOULD have
changed."Bennett would have been re-elected in 2010, and Cannon
probably would have won in 2008.Understand that Count My Vote
*explicitly* bans runoff elections. Read the language of their amendment. Pg 18,
lines 394-397: "Candidates...receiving the HIGHEST NUMBER OF VOTES cast for
each office ARE NOMINATED by their registered political party for that
office..."Why do they do this? Because the goal of CMV is
*divide and conquer.* Lots of voters didn't like Cannon. Lots of voters
didn't like Bennett. But agreement on who should replace either was far
from unanimous. Had there been three or more candidates on the ballot in the
Chaffetz v. Cannon race, the opposition to Cannon would have been split. Same
for the opposition to Bennett. Incumbents have a huge advantage in terms of
finances and name recognition. They may be unpopular, but if you split the
opposition they will usually get the greatest number of votes.There
is *no reason* for CMV to ban runoffs other than to protect incumbents.
If the goal of CMV is to split the vote... I don't like it. Then the
majority doesn't necessarily win. The vote split the least wins (which is
often the minority). We experienced this at my caucus meeting.There were many vocal Hatch supporters there.They asked for
volunteers to be delegates. Naturally a lot of Hatch supporters volunteered.
There was only 1 who was totally against Hatch.We wrote our votes on
papers and counted them. Surprisingly the lone Hatch detractor won.I spoke with the counters later and they said most people voted for the other
guys, but there were so many of them those votes got divided by about 10, none
of them getting enough votes to surpass the one anti-Hatch option (who's
votes were consolidated). So the majority did not win (which is wrong).I found out later we were supposed to have a preliminary vote, and then
vote again, only this time with only the top-2. This would have fixed the
problem.We will have the same problem if we don't have a
preliminary vote to get to the top-2 for the primary election.
The great news here is that I must be rich and powerful because I am a staunch
supporter of Count My Vote. My wife will be so thrilled to know!But
seriously, we shouldn't attack the motives of those who disagree with us.
We have no way of really knowing. It seems reasonable that as adults and fellow
citizens we should be able to have a conversation about how to best select our
public officials without accusing each other of being power hungry, corrupt,
elite, or a dozen other things we can't really know or prove. Here are some things I do know:I gathered 40 signatures and was never
paid a cent nor did I mislead anyone. I don't expect to gain from
this in anyway except to have leaders who are a better representation of me. I and others I know have felt very disenfranchised with the caucus system. The law says that if we gathered enough signatures, we should be given a day
at the polls.
2 bits: If your wife had wanted to, she could have read the whole
petition and proposed legislation. It's right there in every signature
book. I don't think it should a signature collectors responsibility to
inform her when she could've informed herself. As I collected signatures I
was shocked and disappointed how few signed without reading what they were
signing, but I didn't see it as my place to stop them or to make sure they
talked to their spouse first. wjalden:The fact that CMV
has significant money set aside for signature collectors does not mean that the
majority of collectors aren't volunteers as you have implied.
Daniel84020,She was with our 2 year old grandson. Do you think
she's going to make him stand there while she reads the whole law?The guy said it was to restore her right to vote. Who's NOT going to
Wjalden, I said "overwhelmingly". Not "all, without exception."
I have been gathering signatures for five months and have only ever met one
worker who was being paid. Forgive me if I trust my own experience over what the
lady at the library told you, or an article written a month before the drive
even began that outlined CMV's potential problems and strategies.
Politics is about the orderly acquisition of power. A lot of citizens think
that showing up at the polls and voting is all that is required for citizenship
in a republican democracy. I fear they are ignorant and altruistic in their
outlook.I like the caucus system, most of the people are interested
and informed, or at least interested enough to come and discuss issues. If you
really care, put down the remote, join a political party and donate money, put
campaign signs on your lawn and get into the process.I fear that we
have a group of people who have tasted political power, and have a desire to
control other people to meet their own agendas. The greatest obstacle to their
goal is the caucus system that lets concerned and involved people choose
delegates and candidates because they can't control the system.CMV will give us flashy ads, hand-picked candidates by king-makers and ignore
the grass roots election process.Elections brings winners and
losers, what gripes me is that people who lose and/or have finished their term
of office can't retire to their own Mt. Vernon and let others take part.
I'm not a paid member for Count My Vote, just a regular citizen volunteer
that feels that we are missing an opportunity to increase voter participation in
the election process.Let the system play out. Encourage all your
neighbors, co-workers and family to learn about this issue and let them make
their own decision.
Just about anything that will brake the "good ole boy" system we have
now is ok with me. I fully believe we would not be stuck with the waste of
space we now have in Washington if it wasn't for the present system. Orin
would never have gotten re-elected if the votes of thinking people counted.