If anyone cares where I stand, I support count my vote, and feel that
politicians trying to stop it, need to be stopped.
Of course there is an argument to be made that it isn't what Jason Chaffetz
wants but what the voters of Utah want.When California made the
change, I think it helped promote candidates whose political ideas were closer
to the will of the people rather than the will of the few.
Representative Chaffetz makes valid points about the caucus system, but in so
doing he seems to fail to take into account that the system is based on the
determinations of a miniscule number of citizens who are politically active.
While it is true that any interested citizen may attend and be heard at
caucuses, the fact remains that the decision makers are almost always those who
have an established political agenda. Another locally published article on
this issue pointed out how relatively few of Utah's citizens now vote on
local and statewide issues.I have read the entire content of the proposed
open primary initiative. It seems reasonable, and would hopefully create
additional voter interest. More importantly, it should better inform voters on
issues confronting political bodies in this state.
Of course Chaffetz wants the caucus system. He wants to stay in office, and
that's the best way to accomplish it -- he doesn't want to have to try
to get the votes of ALL the people, instead of just those in the Eagle Forum,
Sutherland Institute and other far right extremist organizations that stack and
control the caucuses.
One of the reasons Mitt didn't get my vote! If count my vote wins the day,
money is all that it will take to buy an election, something both monied
democrats and Republicans well know? For them, it is just another game for
power and honor; for the rest of us, paying for their phones ideas. To say that
they are in it to serve, is an oxymoron insult of the highest order!
My faith in Mitt died a little when he endorsed Bob Bennett for re-election in
2010. It died a lot more when he picked Mike Leavitt for his chief-of-staff and
Paul Ryan for his running mate. He may be a "nice guy," but his
political positions all favor the wealthy special interests. It's why he
couldn't connect with the voters nationwide in 2012, why he got 4 million
fewer votes than McCain did in 2008 (even though he could've won running
away), and why I would never vote for him again.Self-government is
about a lot more than filling out a ballot with your opinion. It's about
conversing with your neighbors, intelligently, respectfully, about what issues
matter to you, them and the community. It's about doing everything you can
to downplay the importance of money and increase thoughtful political dialogue.
This is the kind of democracy celebrated in the famous Norman Rockwell
painting.Every election, our rich, powerful incumbents - who've
had a 2-4-6 year head start on raising money over any of their opponents - have
to face precinct delegates directly and answer serious questions. Why is that a
Henry Drummond: "When California made the change, I think it helped promote
candidates whose political ideas were closer to the will of the people rather
than the will of the few."You pick a state that has been
famously ungovernable, on the decline, and on the verge of bankruptcy, and cite
it as an example of how to run things. That's like citing Miley Cyrus as a
model of virtue and propriety.There are plenty of hated and/or
corrupt and/or extremist politicians throughout the country who were chosen via
straight primaries. There is absolutely no reason to think a straight primary
would be better than the caucus-convention-primary system Utah has at present,
and lots of reasons to think it could be worse.
Politicians like Chaffetz will always favor a caucus system, its a lot easier to
convince a few delegates than try to appeal to all of the great unwashed that
could come in and cast a primary ballot. If we could get a stand-up guy to run
for Mike Lee's Senate seat in a Republican primary maybe could get a Bob
Chaffetz's comments justifying the current system are all about how
"the little guy" can run a credible election. True, the current system
does that. But what about the rights of the voters who aren't delegates?
The current system disenfranchises them. Chaffetz knows full well that the only
citizens he needs to reach out to are delegates. Count My Vote will change that
so Chaffetz will be accountable to his entire constituency, not just to the few
hundred delegates in his district.
The big goal of Count My Vote is divide-and-conquer. It would give us a no
run-off primary.Under the present system, the list of candidates is
narrowed down to two, at most. If an incumbent makes it into the primary (as
Chris Cannon did against Chaffetz in 2008), he has only one opponent. If Cannon
had faced 2 or 3 or 20 opponents, with no run-off, his opposition would have
been divided and he would still be in office today. Cannon was unpopular, but no
single candidate would have outpolled him.That's why the Count
My Vote system is far inferior to our present caucus-convention-primary system.
If we go to a straight primary, then our incumbents, flush with money from
selling their votes for their entire term, will seldom be defeated.Utah is a solidly Republican state. The Republican will almost always win. Our
current system is better than a primary at holding Republican incumbents
accountable, because once a Republican makes it on the general election ballot
it's highly unlikely they will lose.
I haven't heard a single plausible argument in behalf of the caucus system,
not even after reading Rep. Jason Chaffetz's comments. Direct
representation of the people has been and always will be the American way.
I'm deeply disappointed in Utah's state legislators trying to
undermine "Count My Vote", where again the legislators want to keep the
people out of their business. "We the People" should be the battle cry
for allowing the people to decide their state and country's future, and a
good start is by voting for "Count My Vote".
I support Count My Vote. I disagree with Rep Chaffetz, as big money will flow
most likely flow to the incumbent. Another reason for this initiative is to give
us more choices than the one party vote we seem to get in this State. I would be
okay with the Caucus system if we had term-limits on US Senatore,
Representatives, Governor and state legislature. For then we could cause
turnover and break the political monopolies that we currently have in our
country. Overall, I feel tha we need a system that creates more inclusiveness
and incentive for people to learn about our government and who we want to
represent us.Everyone should read the book "Why Nations
Fail" to learn more about the benefits of an inclusive society and what they
can do. Right now, I feel that we as a nation, are regressing into a pattern of
extractive political and economic society.
The caucus system weeds out the lazy and uniformed voters (I will not mention
which party relies on their votes). People at the caucuses are engaged,
informed and must defend their positions to their neighbors. The caucuses are
reminiscent of early America where people vigorously debated the issues in
taverns and town halls. Sadly, in modern America, many people get their
political information from comedians and bumper stickers. Where
there are no caucuses, incumbents rely on the size of their campaign coffers
rather than the strength of their positions. We already have to suffer the
consequences of these low-information voters in the primary and general
elections. Do we really want our candidates determined by who can buy the most
ad time during Judge Judy and the Kardashians?
I have a few questions.If you are trying to game a system to win
something, like an election, is it easier to stack/game the system with fewer
people involved (caucus) or with a large number of people involved (primary)?Why do people believe that money doesn't win an election under the
caucus system?Why do people think that power & influence
doesn't have an effect under the caucus system?Has anyone
compared the amount of money spent for campaigns in states our size with
primaries as opposed to Utah with its caucus? Some say that a primary will
require more money, or will eliminate the smaller guy from being able to win.
It seems to me that all of our candidates are either independently wealthy or
have wealthy backers, and this under the caucus.
wjalden: As a lifelong Republican, and former Californian, I was an
unsuccessful primary campaign candidate for state Assembly, spending 29 cents
per vote. The winner of the primary won by about 1000 votes in a 30,000 vote
election, and spent $4.30 per vote in the process. He lost in the general
election. My point is, that with hard work, even on a very limited budget, our
campaign came very close to winning, because of a great deal of grass roots
support. I favor the primary system.
The Count My Vote people just want to by pass the grass roots effort and hard
work that should go with becoming a candidate. It is easier to manipulate the
public by those that don't have values, but a lot of money. The farce is
thinking that the democrats or republicans are different! The current caucus
system gives the average joe the best chance to elect responsible leaders, even
if cronyism has manipulated that system too! Is there any readers here that
know the difference between a democracy and a republic? If you did, Count My
Vote would be a non starter!
My first glance at the screen headline had me believing chaffetz supports the
'circus' system. Perhaps my first glance was correct. Or,
it's time to quite staring at this small screen bouncing down a North
Dakota highway and get some sleep.
In the "caucus" system, the principles of this American Republic are
utilized to their best. Not everyone will invest the time to know which of the
first candidates to run will serve the Party and the area the best. Just like
we can't know the "ins" and the "outs" of every bill that
is placed before congress, we elect representatives to investigate the matter in
detail for us and then vote for us for what they consider to be the best
outcome, or in this case candidate. I have been a delegate several times, and I
spent many hours investigating and speaking directly with the candidates. I
happen to know that most of the other delegates do the same thing. It's
not as though that others do not have a say. If there is not an overwhelming
majority voting for the candidate, it goes to a primary election. I know that
the "caucus" system works. Republican government, YES!
Count my vote = wealthy progressive liberal republican candidates on the general
election ballot running against wealthy progressive liberal democrats.Caucus system = conservative republican grass roots common man on the general
election ballot running against a progressive liberal common man democrat.This is a no brainer Utah! Don't sign the petition. Keep BUY MY
VOTE out of our state and keep choice on our general election ballot.
Caucus system: Hire someone from your local neighborhood. Call that person
every week to find out who they met with and what they learned. Help that
person pick the best candidate through a lengthy, often, one-on-one interview
process. A lot of information is what you will get.Count (Buy) my
Vote: Never see a candidate up close and personal again. Sound bites are all
you will get. You will have pretty brochures and pretty websites and then you
will make your choice. Low information voters will vote with little or no
An insider, wanting to protect the status quo. Hardly a surprise.
Of course he wants the Caucus system. Those in power want the Eagle Forum,
Sutherland Institute and those power brokers to keep them in office. All we
have to do is look at our current Senator Mike Lee. Look at the damage that guy
has done to our reputation, our economy and our civility. He would not have
been there in a Primary System. I want my vote to count. I'm really
starting to like Mitt again!
Duh! Of course he does. He would not have won the nomination if there had been
an open primary.
Sure Chaffetz supports the "system." Live outside your district and
control a few power brokers who do live in "your" district. Make a few
calls every two years and continue your life-time job.
Utefan60: If it weren't for the Sutherland institute, the eagle forum,
Mike Lee, and more importantly, individuals that care about the future of this
country, the socialist nightmare would be complete. Now, it is just equality
for everyone with a minimum wage economy as the benchmark of success! I would
hope that 54 million Americans on food stamps, many of the rest on minimum wage
jobs, abortion on demand, and men marrying each other would not be considered as
the high point of lsociety! But, I guess some like it that way! Perhaps
another war and making the rich even richer would add to the depth of this
understanding! Go figure!
bandersen said:Utefan60: If it weren't for the Sutherland institute,
the eagle forum, Mike Lee, and more importantly, individuals that care about the
future of this country, the socialist nightmare would be complete. Only self important delegates believe that nonsense. The sutherland institute
of disinformation and proud of it, care about this country so much, they are
willing to knowingly lie to the public in their propaganda advertisements and
this is who you trust? The eagle forum doesn't have much use for facts
either. And lee well he can't remember what he's going to shut down or
when he'll be on fox next.
"When I was nobody trying to become somebody, I had ideas and
principles,” Chaffetz said.That's funny. He has neither of
those now that he is in Congress. I'm fairly certain he didn't have
those when he was initially running, he was just pretending. "I
didn’t have big name ID. I didn’t have big dollars." Except that he was well known in the Republican circles. He worked for one of
those MLM businesses Republicans tout. He was also Jon Hunstman's campaign
manager and chief of staff. Now he has both of those, and he wants to keep them,
so keep the system the way it is. He got his, the others can eat cake.
cavetrollYou don't understand. The caucus system makes it
easier to unseat an incumbent. So "keeping the system the way it is" no
longer helps Chaffetz. While the caucus system helped him initially, now that he
has a name and a war chest, he would want to oppose the caucus system if he
truly were without principles.