For some time, we have used the slogan,
"County Seat is the show about local issues, not
local politics". So, it might seem odd, that Today
on The County Seat we are talking about Senate
Bill 54 and its impact on political parties'
selection of candidates for County, State and
national offices. The bill has been challenged in
court, and as of today the judge's decision
stands in support of the law. But the impacts of
the process on communities, particularly rural
ones, still seem to be of concern to most county
local leaders. We will try to share some of
those concerns today in our show. Just to make
sure we all start on the same page, here is Ria
to cover the difference between a caucus path
and an open primary path to a party's
nomination.
Every election cycle
caucuses and primaries! The Iowa
Caucus! The New Hampshire Primary. If
you are like me, you probably haven't
paid too much attention to it all in the
past, so.. What is the difference
between a caucus and a primary? Is
one preferable to the other? Should I
even care? Well here in Utah those
questions have come up a lot, so let's
take a look at the issue in The Basics.
Both Caucuses and Primaries are
systems that allow party members,
Democrat, Republican, Libertarian,
whatever, to choose candidates for their
respective parties.
In a caucus, neighbors meet in small
groups called precincts to discuss party
platforms, beliefs, and to review
candidates that have registered to run
for that office. Party members ask
questions of each other and of the
candidates to find out whether or not
they represent their values. Delegates
are then selected from each precinct to
represent the voters at a party
convention charged with finding the best
candidate to support the issues
important to their precinct.
Candidates then meet with the
delegates during the vetting process.
Good delegates do their research to
make sure the candidate is who he says
he is. There are two conventions, one
for county offices and another for state
and national offices. At the convention,
the party continues to poll all the
delegates until they have narrowed
down the field to just 2 candidates for
the primary election.
This can be a long process on the part of
both the candidate and the delegates,
which is the major drawback of the
caucus system, thus fewer people tend
to participate at the local caucus. Last
month one precinct in Holladay, only
had two voters show up to fill 3 delegate
positions.
A primary system is quite different.
Candidates register to run for the office
then fill out petitions requiring
signatures from registered voters of
their party. The number required
depends upon the office you are running
for. A Kane County office seeker for
example, only needs 81 signatures to be
on the ballot, while on the Wasatch front
they might need a thousand.
Candidates can go door to door
themselves, or hire a company to do it
for them. Collect enough signatures, go
directly to the primary ballot. The
signature to primary route usually costs
quite a bit more money to accomplish,
pricing some out of the race. Primary
elections don't have great voter turn
out.
Both of these systems have pros and
cons. Caucus systems seem to vet
candidates better, but primaries allow
more people to vote in the selection
process. Caucuses define issues from
the neighborhood up, while primaries
tend to define issues from the candidate
down..
So which one do we have here in
Utah? Oddly, we have both. Senate Bill
54, passed in 2014 as a compromise to
avoid a primary system ballot initiative,
allows candidates to go through either
or both process in order to gain access
to the ballot (unless, of course, a
candidate at convention gets more than
70 percent of the delegate votes,
eliminating the primary altogether).
While the hybrid system seems like a
good compromise, it's actually led to
infighting within Utah's Republican Party
and a lawsuit between the party and the
State of Utah.
So there you go. A Primary is quick, a
caucus is in-depth, and both can be
pretty messy; but that's what a republic
is all about. Chad will be back to let
opinions fly on both sides of the issue in
our discussion. For the County Seat,
I'm Ria Rossi Booth.
Welcome back to the County seat we are having
a conversation today about Senate Bill 54
primary versus caucus and that almost sounds
like a slug out match of some sort in a boxing
ring, but not really. We have two distinguished
visitors with us today to take each side of the
issue. Dave Owen, who is with Owen
communications. He is a consultant for the count
my vote. Jonathan Johnson, who is a sponsor of
keep my voice the other side of the coin, who is
also president of Medici ventures. Sounds like
medicine, and da Vinci, all wrapped up into one.
There you go.
Alright thank you for joining us so we left the
conversation last segment, just briefly
introducing Senate Bill 54 as a compromise, so I
want to start by asking what you see Jonathan
as the advantage in a straight caucus system
where people start in the caucus and go through
the nomination process to convention. I will ask
you the same on primaries after so Jonathan,
you go first.
So, I've participated in the caucus convention
system into different roles one as a delegate
who was elected by my neighbors to vet
candidates talk to them decide which one to
choose the other way. I've participated is as a
candidate, I ran for governor and spent a lot of
time meeting with an answering questions of
and courting state delegates. I think the real
virtue of the caucus system is. It provides
accountability for candidates they can't just put
out glossy brochures they cant just run
expensive television ads. They've got to meet
with voters one-on-one and in particular
educated voters who are representing their
neighborhood and answer their questions and
will be held accountable for how they vote. I
think that's a really important part of a
representative republic, which is what we are.
Now, I have said that I'm from Owen
communications advisory of count my vote
because I'm very careful about speaking for
them. And now you're going to hear something
from me that he won't hear from them.
Everybody is overstating the effect of this I think
in the end were probably going to have a
legislature very similar to the one we have now
and probably going to have the same governor
that we would have had anyway and so on and
so forth. The reason I care is that if I'm going to
err, I'm going to err on the side of more
participation in giving people more voice and so
that's just a personal thing for me that I believe
in that I believe in little D democracy.
And I watch the convention system go rogue.
Too many times.
Well, and it has the potential, but I would
suppose also the primary election with a hotly
contested slogan-based competition could
probably go a little bit rogue as well.
I always tell people ask Eric Cantor whether you
can get taken out in a primary I mean he was
slated to be the next speaker and now he's
home mowing his lawn and a very little known
underfunded college professor beat him and that
drives a lot of the votes in Congress is their fear
of going home and getting primaries
when I was a candidate prior to the convention I
would hold a tele-town hall. I would call
delegates and they would listen for a long time
and they would ask questions after question
after question during the primary. When I would
hold a tele-town hall. I could have just as many
or many more people on the phone call that
would ask a single question, they wouldn't ask a
single question for an hour-long I think that when
people know that they are representing their
neighbors. They take it seriously.
You do bring a point that I think is worthy of
conversation here and that is the claim that you
have a flyover effect and obviously, this program
is called the County seat, so we look at our
issues at a County altitude and so there is some
impact on County elections and I know that the
impacts of the dual system or the preference for
caucus or primary differs by where you are in
the state. But is that a flyover effect a factor. If
you're looking at primaries where your only at a
statewide race looking at the total number of
votes. Does that not have the potential of
excluding the points of view of less populated
portions of the state?
I honestly don't believe it does, any more than is
the case now. I mean, I still think that elections
play out the representative republic thing. How
far do you want to take it? Do you want to vote
for the people who get to vote for the people
who vote for the people who select the
candidate? I don't want to go to that if everybody
else in the world were doing it the way were and
they were getting a better result than I might see
some reason in it. But the fact is, most states
are what we're going to is a signature, but the
caucus will still have an influence.
There are 25 largely rural counties off the
Wasatch front. I don't know why someone
running for a statewide office would spend their
time not focusing on it. 2 million people on the
Wasatch front, because that's enough to win and
it's important that those that represent the state
understand what people in Juab County care
about or San Juan County or Duchenne County
and the motivation to go there. When you're
dealing with delegates who are going to get you
elected is a big big deal and I think that's why
keep my voice and this representative
government is really important.
And are you suggesting that the governor of
Texas pays no attention to the rural areas of
Texas. Are you suggesting that the mayor of
Iowa or the governor of Iowa doesn't take good
care to go to those farming communities and get
to know people?
Here is what I am talking about Utah. I'm talking
about what we have a unique population along a
small, maybe 60 or 70-mile corridor and most of
I 15 it's a thin small corridor. I'm not talking
about Texas and Iowa. I'm talking about Utah
and what's best for Utah. If I'm up in Brigham
city I want to make sure that my statewide
representative, and court. My vote and care and
learn about my issues. I think that's important.
When I read accounts about this in the press
and this whole process going forward the
argument that comes out is that Utah with its
caucus and convention system is unique and it
is the only place in the country. The only place in
history that it's been and so I'm wondering when
you relate that to national parties still running
conventions to select their candidates, even
though there are primaries in the lower levels of
that is that a correct statement that the caucus
systems that have been illuminated everywhere
in the country and that we are unique because
both The desert news and the Tribune standard
Examiner and the Provo Herald have all made
that statement in print.
There are elements of the caucus convention
system as it was practiced in Utah. Prior to SB
54 that were unique, but the overall premise. I
mean, Iowa was a caucus state that is a caucus
state that the selection method for presidential
candidates. Some of them very from that when it
comes to state and local candidates. Others
have something fairly similar. I know that in
Wyoming, for example, because I have
experience there. The convention does matter
and how the delegates vote and who they
endorse does matter in the local elections, it's
just not a binding the way it was here so I don't
know. I think we are probably the last vestige of
the specifics of that system prior to SB 54
so, it's not like we are unique because we were
unique. Originally, but we've become unique
because everybody's migrating from it.
And I know that there are efforts in California to
move back to something closer to the caucus
convention system whether it will work or not in
a state like that. I don't know but I think that
there are folks that are so frustrated with the
open direct primaries system there and how it's
changed politics in California that they would like
to move something closer to what we're doing.
Now, let's not use California as an example, ha
ha.
If we use them as an example of going wrong
and wanting to come more like us. I think it's a
good example. If we are peculiar, we should be
pleased.
Final thoughts. We will start with you Dave.
The voters can never be wrong. And I guess I'm
a believer in that in that the voters are
accountable the voters are responsible for me
the caucus convention system is to exclusive
with too many people there's the problem of
attendance but there's also the problems of
personality. I can imagine my wife, who is
English and is actually the last presidential
election was her first. She became a naturalized
citizen just immediately before that and I cannot
imagine her going to one of the more
rambunctious caucus meetings in the state
probably in our neighborhood. It wouldn't be a
big problem. But what my point is that people
aren't willing to go, that are like us, willing to kind
of stand up and yell a little bit, our intimidated
and they don't feel free to go there and so for me
it's just simpler, easier, let's go campaign. Let's
show up when the ballot goes out or the polls
are open on Tuesday and do it that way and to
me I'm going to err on the side of more
participation.
I find that puzzling statement because you said
your wife is from England hasn't she ever been
to Parliament? I mean, that's a pretty raucous
bunch of guys and gals.
Yeah. She's never wrong. I can tell you that
Your turn.
This is what I would say this is a First
Amendment issue a freedom of Association
issue were talking about political parties
deciding how they will nominate their candidates
who then will participate in an election where the
voters can't be wrong, but for the voters to tell
the political parties how they must do their
personal business is a freedom of association
issue and that is why the keep my voice initiative
is titled the freedom of association initiative.
All that is fine. All that is valid and tell you bring
into the fact that the taxpayers pay for the
primary election and at the point that this private
Association elects to take public money as we
all know that comes with strings and therefore if
you were willing to go out and fund those
elections and fund everything about getting your
candidate on the ballot. I suppose that delete
might work out but where we are holding
statewide elections and the state of Utah runs
them and the lieutenant governor is responsible
for them and the taxpayer pays for them that I
am afraid mitigates your claim.
Strings the great puppet master has spoken ha
ha we should act like sovereign individual's
sovereign parties not like puppets being pulled
by the strings of the elite of this state.
Gentlemen, very good debate. Thank you very
much both for attending.
Thank you, Chad.
My pleasure. Thank you.
I appreciate it. Usually I just tell people if you
want to go back and watch the extended version
of this go back and do so but now I'm
encouraging everybody watching today to go
back and see this entire conversation. It's very
illuminating. And I did not say illuminati aiding.
Just to keep the conspiracies down anyway.
Stay with us. Will be back with more of the
County seat when we meet with the candidate
who has run under both systems and will see
how it affects his campaign this very day will be
back with the County seat in just a minute.
Welcome back to The County Seat. In our
discussion, it became clear that the primary
concerns about the concept of an open primary
system centers around cost, the communication
that define the campaign issues, and the ability
for any candidate to have an equal shot at
securing the nomination. No one should know
these concerns better than a candidate who has
run under both sets of rules... and is running
again. Representative Logan Wilde of Morgan
County is such a person currently on the ground
in his re-election campaign.
She's not home. How are you today? Good, I
am representative Logan Wilde and I am out
trying to meet people in my district and trying
to understand their feelings about the
initiatives being presented on this coming up
ballot in November.
I have been running for office this is my second
term now I have also been a county council
member, I have also been a rancher, That's
what I do for a profession I run sheep and cattle
here in Morgan county.
Currently I represent fourteen cities and towns
in five counties and seven school districts. Just
to get a meeting in each of one of those almost
takes a month of preparation just to have a
town hall meeting so people will come.
When my wife and I decided well we will start
by doing it ourselves how hard would one
thousand signatures be? Well it's a lot harder
then what we thought so we started gathering
signatures and what we found we weren't
spending any time getting our message out we
weren't spending any time with the people that
are actually trying to connect with you as an
elected official.
Rural districts especially they are very large,
some of the areas are two hundred miles away.
To gather signatures is a very daunting task. I
have seen a lot of representatives that them
and their wives are out every night trying to get
the signatures so they can get on the ballot.
Instead of trying to actually work on their
message what is their community saying to you,
and as a representative that's really what, your
ideas should be coming from the community.
I think the caucus system has some benefits
because it brings, it allows the local community
come together and work through their political
opinions or ideas. The convention was much
more beneficial especially in a rural setting
because what you find it's a way to work on
your message and to actually touch people
working in politics, those people that have
some passion. I think there is a way to make
both of them work in each of the communities
and make things move forward. I don't want
ones needs to drown out the needs of other I
think we need to look at what is beneficial to
everybody in the state of Utah.
Keep in mind that the costs contemplated by
Logan in his current election are much lighter
than if he had faced competition inside or
outside his party. Think about that and I will
return with my final thoughts.
Welcome back to the County Seat. So, after all
this discussion, here is my two cents worth on
what the real failure of both systems are, if they
are to have a true representation of the voters
in the party candidate selection process.
Strangely, it is the exact same failure, regardless
of the side of the argument you are on.
It has almost nothing to do with money, and
little to do with whether a candidate invests the
time to engage all the blocks of voters. IT is not
a failure of the system, the party apparatus
itself {although that can play a part in it} or even
the direction of the issues of the campaign from
grass roots up, or candidate down. The real
failure is.... us. You and me, and our failure to
properly engage in protecting the democratic
republic that we are so lucky to live in.
It is sad to note that in my office, all 10
employees knew the date and time of caucus
meetings, and yet, only two of us attended. In a
few weeks, I will ask a similar question about
the primary and how many filled out that ballot
having studied and vetted all the candidates
running. I will bet that my answer to those two
questions will garner, at best, the same number
of people.
It is said that when Benjamin Franklin, was
asked what kind of government we had formed,
he answered: "A Republic, if we can keep it".
And it does raise the legitimate question, posed
by Mr. Johnson during the extended version of
the discussion: Is it better to have a few well-
informed people fully vet the candidates who
are to represent the concerns of their
neighborhood, or turn out say 20 percent of an
electorate that has little if any information
about who and what they are voting for. Will
the results of one be better than the other? I
would like to hear your thoughts, and would
like you to ask one question of yourself,
honestly: Did you really know all the candidates
and what they stood for in your last primary
election? Or did you guess? I believe that a
well-attended caucus meeting {60% or more of
registered voters} will consistently turn out
better selections to represent their community
that 60% turn out in a primary. And the process
will better protect the all of the citizens with
the results, not just the majority. Something to
think about...
That is all the time we have today, would love
for you all to engage with each other on this
issue on our social media pages and share,
where you think it appropriate. We'll see you
on The County Seat
For more infomation >> HOT CAR DEATHS: A new high-tech child seat seeks to end tragic child hot car deaths - Duration: 2:25. 
For more infomation >> Seat Altea 1.6 STYLANCE | Cruise-ctrl | Trekhaak | Climate-ctrl | Park.sensoren - Duration: 0:44. 
For more infomation >> Seat Ibiza 1.4 Stella - Duration: 1:00. 
For more infomation >> Seat Leon ST 1.0 ECOTSI STYLE CONNECT - Duration: 0:54. 
For more infomation >> Seat Arona €3.010,- voordeel 1.0 TSI Style 95 pk (vsb 19800) voorraaddeal Rijklaar! - Duration: 0:41. 
For more infomation >> Seat Altea XL 1.9 TDI Businessline [Climate & Cruise. Navi] - Duration: 0:54. 
For more infomation >> Seat Alhambra 2.0 TDI DSG Style | 7-persoons | Camera - Duration: 1:03. 
For more infomation >> Seat Arona €3.010,- voordeel 1.0 TSI Style 95 pk (vsb 19797) voorraaddeal Rijklaar! - Duration: 0:42. 
For more infomation >> Seat Ibiza 1.4-16V Reference - Duration: 0:58. 
For more infomation >> Seat Altea 1.9 TDI STYLANCE / CLIMA / CRUISE !! - Duration: 0:59. 
For more infomation >> Seat Altea 1.6 102pk Comfortstyle Trekhaak / Airco / Cruise / LM - Duration: 0:59. 
For more infomation >> Judge fights to keep his seat - Duration: 2:00. 
For more infomation >> Seat Ibiza 1.4 signo 74kW - Duration: 0:58. 
For more infomation >> Seat Arona €3.010,- voordeel 1.0 TSI Style 95 pk (vsb 19801) voorraaddeal Rijklaar! - Duration: 0:44. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét