(Scott Sommerdorf | The Salt Lake Tribune | Photo) Former Utah
Governor Mike Leavitt was on hand to support the "Count My Vote" effort at a
press conference held on the south steps of the State Capitol building in
September.
[Sidebar: The Caucus supporters see their side of the issue as the ideal system--candidates have their campaign and election in front of the delegates at the caucus convention. If one candidate gets the majority of the vote, they've won the election, no requirement for the public to vote. If there is no majority, the 2 highest candidates are required to be on a primary ballot for the public to vote. The delegates are chosen and elected in each precinct, and then attend the caucus convention. Caucus supporters say that any other method would allow the wealthiest candidate to win.
The Primary supporters see that they have no choice in who gets elected, that the candidates are decided for them at the caucus convention by a small group of people who may (or may not) allegedly "control" the outcome of the election, and see no problem with wealthy candidates out-spending other candidates to win the Primary election because it is following the national and state constitutions in giving the public the right to choose who they want as a candidate for both primary and the general election.
Both sides claim low voter turnout: Caucus supporters claim "uneducated and uninformed voters" show up---Primary supporters claim voter attitude is "Why bother to vote? We didn't have any say on who became delegates in our precinct because it was all decided prior to the precinct meeting, and then a handful of 'party elite' decided who is to win the election, whether it's a primary or the general, with candidate 'x' who we didn't want in the first place because candidate 'x' just happens to be part of the 'party elite' who keeps the status quo."]
What is YOUR opinion?? Below is a copy/paste of some of the comments that were posted with this article in the Salt Lake Tribune.
Below is Summary of Posted Comments, direct quotes, that show Utah's divided thoughts on this very heated debate:
Actually, if Count My Vote succeeds in taking away our neighborhood elections, it will be the power brokers and those with fame, money, or incumbency that will be taking over.
Opposition forms to Count My Vote; public hearings scheduled
By Robert Gehrke
The Salt Lake Tribune
First Published Oct 13 2013 01:01 am • Last Updated Oct
13 2013 11:06 am
"Opposition to the Count My Vote effort to replace party
caucuses with direct primaries appears to be taking shape as a new, bipartisan
group — Protect Our Neighborhood Elections — has formed with plans to point out
flaws in the other side’s proposal...
"We believe very strongly that the Count My Vote proposal
as drafted will damage the voice of a lot of people in the state of Utah and
their ability, whether they’re Republican, Democrat or unaffiliated, to have
their local issues understood, both by the Legislature and most certainly by the
federal delegation."
Count My Vote co-executive director Taylor Morgan said
the group expected opposition.
"It’s no surprise that some delegates and party insiders
oppose us. They currently have complete control over the nomination process and
are reluctant to share that power with all Utah voters," Morgan said...
"...The seven public hearings spread across the state are required under Utah law
before the Count My Vote backers can begin gathering the 102,000 signatures they
need to put their proposal on the 2014 ballot...
The Primary supporters see that they have no choice in who gets elected, that the candidates are decided for them at the caucus convention by a small group of people who may (or may not) allegedly "control" the outcome of the election, and see no problem with wealthy candidates out-spending other candidates to win the Primary election because it is following the national and state constitutions in giving the public the right to choose who they want as a candidate for both primary and the general election.
Both sides claim low voter turnout: Caucus supporters claim "uneducated and uninformed voters" show up---Primary supporters claim voter attitude is "Why bother to vote? We didn't have any say on who became delegates in our precinct because it was all decided prior to the precinct meeting, and then a handful of 'party elite' decided who is to win the election, whether it's a primary or the general, with candidate 'x' who we didn't want in the first place because candidate 'x' just happens to be part of the 'party elite' who keeps the status quo."]
What is YOUR opinion?? Below is a copy/paste of some of the comments that were posted with this article in the Salt Lake Tribune.
Below is Summary of Posted Comments, direct quotes, that show Utah's divided thoughts on this very heated debate:
Actually, if Count My Vote succeeds in taking away our neighborhood elections, it will be the power brokers and those with fame, money, or incumbency that will be taking over.
An election suggests that there is an attempt to gain broad attendance. The
opposite is the case in the caucuses. If you cannot attend caucus on that specific day at that specific time, your
voice IS NOT HEARD. At least with a primary, folks at least have all day. More
if they vote by mail.
The only people 'elected' are party representatives. It's a party meeting.
Nothing more.
When only six people show up in a precinct it goes like this: Who wants to be
delegate to the state? Any body else? Okay. Who wants to be Secretary? Anybody
else? okay. And so on until - okay that only leaves chairman and you're the only
one who doesn't have an office yet. The previous caucus only had two people from
our 'neighborhood'.Yeah - it's a meeting.
Because in many places there aren't enough people to 'vote'. They simply
divide up the offices based on the number of people who showed up in the
precinct.
Utah's caucus system favors a small number of people, and then usually gives us two bad choices to choose from.
Utah's caucus system favors a small number of people, and then usually gives us two bad choices to choose from.
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.
I am a county delegate currently and have been a state delegate in the past.
While I enjoyed the attention that I get as a delegate, the fact that only 80
people picked my current state legislator is frightening. I actually support my
legislator, but since he made it out of convention with 60% and was unopposed,
it was a tiny fraction of the population that actually got to vote. How is that
a "compound constitutional republic," as teachers are now required to tell
students that the U.S. is?
Utah has a constitutional limit on its debt. It also has a constitutional
mandate to balance its budget. The legislature has been doing this since Utah
became a state. It is nothing new.
What is new, however, is the volume of federal dollars we're taking in as a state to pay for our various programs. Frequently, those who are most anxious to defend the caucus are the least involved in actual legislation.
In fact, given the exclusionary nature of caucuses, held on only one day at one house, not a public place, such neighborhood meetings, which for many don't encourage openness, seemingly have, based upon past candidates finally nominated, a system where a determined minority can exercise control. That minority, able to secure for a candidate a party nomination, especially if Republican, that can virtually guarantee him/her the election seems to produce candidates who don't see their election as the result of the popular vote but rather to only partisan party members. They, then curry favor with those members while elected to secure re-election. That to me seems the antithesis of good management.
What is new, however, is the volume of federal dollars we're taking in as a state to pay for our various programs. Frequently, those who are most anxious to defend the caucus are the least involved in actual legislation.
In fact, given the exclusionary nature of caucuses, held on only one day at one house, not a public place, such neighborhood meetings, which for many don't encourage openness, seemingly have, based upon past candidates finally nominated, a system where a determined minority can exercise control. That minority, able to secure for a candidate a party nomination, especially if Republican, that can virtually guarantee him/her the election seems to produce candidates who don't see their election as the result of the popular vote but rather to only partisan party members. They, then curry favor with those members while elected to secure re-election. That to me seems the antithesis of good management.
Both political parties are working on improvements to their neighborhood
elections. The proposed Count My Vote law is not an improvement, but is worse
that what Utah got rid of in the 1940's after a 10 year failure. The Neighborhood Election and caucus meetings have been scheduled at 7pm on a
Tuesday or Thursday, with as many conflicting meetings cancelled or postponed as
possible to allow the greatest attendance. Over 110,000 GOP voters alone, let
alone record crowds at the democratic party went to their Neighborhood
Elections. Plans are to be able to have twice that many be able to show up to
them for next year.
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? Who are we proposing to change one of the best systems in the country to get elected this time? Yes, it can be improved, but scrapped for something worse?
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? Who are we proposing to change one of the best systems in the country to get elected this time? Yes, it can be improved, but scrapped for something worse?
********************************************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment