BUY MY VOTE is bad for Utah. That's why so many legislators on the hill are
looking seriously at SB59 as a way to preserve our caucus system and allow the
low budget common man a chance to get elected. BUY MY VOTE, if passed into law,
will change the system to a TV primary election campaign with the winner chosen
by out of state big money donors spending millions to get their woman on TV
without ever having to answer the tough questions.We'll end up
with a liberal progressive republican running against a liberal progressive
democrat in our general election. Big money will see to it that a conservative
republican doesn't ever get elected in Utah again.Why do you
think so many liberal progressives are collecting all the signatures for this?
Because a liberal progressive democrat can't win a general election in
Utah. But a liberal progressive republican, her agenda hidden behind millions in
TV adds, can get elected. BUY MY VOTE is a Trojan horse that will
give us two liberal progressive candidates in a general elction. SB59 will
preserve the choice between a conservative and a progressive liberal in our
The legislature had their chance and now, seeing the writing on the wall and
their endless efforts for the self-preservation of their own power, they wish to
do some minor tweaking with the terrible and exclusionary caucus system.
I'm sorry, it is now time for the people to speak. Next up. Term limits
for the legislature. Lets get a petition started for that.
"...House Republicans closed their caucus Tuesday to talk privately about a
controversial bill...".They represent all the people of
Utah...don't they?What/Who are they so afraid of that they have
to hide behind closed doors?One party rule operating behind closed
doors ramming legislation down the throats of the people is only a problem if
Democrats do it?
The caucus system is flawed in so many ways. Voters are not equally represented
in the caucus system; some precincts will have many more delegates than other
precincts. Delegates who die, resign, or become disqualified can be replaced
directly by the party leadership with no input from the people in the precinct
(what kind of representation is that?). But the fundamental issue is that people
who aren't elected delegates really have no say in whose names will appear
on the ballot. The notion that one delegate could faithfully represent all the
views of twenty of his or her neighbors is laughable, but some argue this is the
whole point of the caucus system--to NOT represent everybody, to not have to
worry about everybody's pesky opinion, to leave the decision making to a
core of unadulterated, anointed party faithful whose wisdom greatly exceeds that
of the poor dolts who selected them.I don't buy that argument.
Representative democracy--selecting people to represent us in the lawmaking
process--is great. Representative voting--selecting people to represent us in
the process of selecting people to represent us in the lawmaking process--is
They closed the caucus because of possible litigation. Of course that's a
convenient smokescreen. I truly believe the people of Utah have had all they can
take of legislative shenanigans and games. This year I suggest
"incumbency" should definitely be a hinderance in any legislative race.
Ah, yes. Open, transparent government -- Utah GOP style.
All these complaints, and who are you going to vote for next time? Yeah, thats
what I thought. Nothing will change until Republicans no longer know they will
get elected no matter what.
mcclark,my state senator (Osmond) was absent for the vote on the senate
version of the bill (SB54). Had he voted for it, he would not get my vote. I
intend to find out his position on it - if he supports it he will not get my
vote. I hope then there is another GOP candidate as I cannot in good conscience
vote for the dem. I guess I will look for a third party candidate or write
someone in.I promise the same if Ken Ivory votes for the house
version.Whether or not you agree with the initiative, this action by
the legislature is totally reprehensible.
@Lost in DC,I have followed some of your comments in the past, and we
disagree on several issues. On this, however we are of like minds - It has to
tell you something that the party in power is doing everything it can to prevent
the people of the state from voting.
Kings Court:Term limits? There was already a petition to impose them- in
1994. Before it hit the ballot, however, the legislature advanced a less-strict
"compromise", and the initiative failed.Ten years later, in
2004, Senator Bramble quietly proposed a bill that struck down term limits
(before any of them had actually had a chance to take effect). It passed. Term
limits were no more despite the popular support.Ten years after
that, we're facing another petition, another "compromise", and
another change to the election system-- and this is how the legislature
responds?Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on each
and every person that voted for you.