Word is reaching that Count My Vote is willing to stop their petition. A negotiation with the Utah Legislature.
Count My Vote = Pirates?
From a year ago:
http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/03/fair-elections-in-utah.html
Why would Count My Vote now "cave" ? Several good reasons, they wanted the Utah Legislature to bail them out.
1. They never had a well written proposed law.
http://www.neighborhoodelection.org/flaws_in_count_my_vote_proposed_legislation
2. Their Legal brief was finally discovered to be a con.
http://www.countmyvoteutah.org/s/Constitutional-Memorandum-and-Letter-wso2.pdf
In a soon to be released counter brief it was discovered that Count My Vote / Buy My Vote based part of their argument on a minority opinion form the SCOTUS and not the majority opinion. It shows that the Legal Brief put out by Count My Vote to be as flawed as the proposed law. Not only is the conflicting sections in Count My Vote going to give a judge pause and kick it back to the Utah Legislature to fix, and the 2% system obviously not treating candidates from different parties equally, but the whole premise of Count My Vote being able to stand up to the courts is flawed.
3. 2014 SB 2014 passed the Senate.
4. Protect Our Neighborhood Elections files a complaint with the Lt. Governor's office re: Count My Vote asking for signatures, perhaps even all to be thrown out.
from
http://fox13now.com/2014/02/21/complaint-claims-count-my-vote-collected-signatures-in-violation-of-the-law/
The complaint outlines four accusations, which include the following:
1 – Only one of eight corporate donors for Count My Vote has filed
the required financial disclosures with the Lt. Governor’s Office.
2 – Washington County School District member emailed Count My Vote materials from a school email account during school hours.
3 – Count My Vote signature collectors have, on documented occasions,
verbally misrepresented the nature of initiative, going so far as to
completely lie about it.
4 – Count My Vote petitions were allegedly left unattended in public
places, which could have allowed anyone to sign without first having
their identity verified.
What did Count My Vote do? They pulled in more money, this time from Sen. Orin Hatch, and they called in Mitt Romney, who likely was just acting at the request of Mike Leavitt.
It is in doubt that Mitt Romney is up to speed on the flaws of Count My Vote:
http://www.redstate.com/diary/fredccox/2013/11/07/perhaps-mitt-romney-should-be-blasting-count-my-vote-having-no-run-off/
Passed problems with 2014 SB 54
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2014/02/2014-sb-54-elections-amendments.html
Pirates or Just Cowards?
Count My Vote had their public hearings when the least number could come and even scheduled them during UEA and a Legislative Session.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/56992046-90/count-vote-group-public.html.csp
"They have scheduled four of their seven public statewide meetings at
noon during the week with two of those during a special session of the
Legislature," said Fred Cox, a former state representative and opponent
of the Count My Vote movement. "They also scheduled two of the required
regional public meetings during UEA (Utah Education Association), so
they don't seem to want the UEA teachers or their invited parents to
attend."
Their Press Conference tomorrow is during the State GOP Central Committee meeting so that none of the GOP Party Leaders could be there.
Count
My Vote: a Lexus lane to the ballot for the rich and famous. Always has
been. With the proposed compromise it is just more obvious.
Fair Elections in Utah. It matters. You can remove your signature using this process:
http://www.neighborhoodelection.org/faq
Showing posts with label Buy My Vote Utah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Buy My Vote Utah. Show all posts
Friday, February 28, 2014
Friday, February 7, 2014
2014 SB 54 Elections Amendments
2014
SB 54 Elections Amendments, A proposal for the Utah Legislature to
adopt Count My Vote, prior to knowing if they get enough signatures, and
prior to a vote in November if they do. It provides exceptions, one of
which would ruin the Same Day Ballot that the GOP is adding to increase
participation for Neighborhood Caucus Election night.
Many citizens who attend their neighborhood elections and caucus meeting become interested in politics and get involved in their communities, the state and the nation. They meet and help candidates become elected. Some then later become candidates. This should be encouraged through education. SB 54, lines 796 to 800 ruins that and should be amended.
Again, we need to amend it to allow greater participation by those that are new to the process. Delete lines 796 to 800. This will allow someone new to run the night of the meeting. We have and should have incentives to file and run for delegate or precinct chair prior to the meeting, but as drafted, the bill reduces participation.
My letter to the Utah Republican State Central Committee:
Dear SCC members,
Many citizens who attend their neighborhood elections and caucus meeting become interested in politics and get involved in their communities, the state and the nation. They meet and help candidates become elected. Some then later become candidates. This should be encouraged through education. SB 54, lines 796 to 800 ruins that and should be amended.
Again, we need to amend it to allow greater participation by those that are new to the process. Delete lines 796 to 800. This will allow someone new to run the night of the meeting. We have and should have incentives to file and run for delegate or precinct chair prior to the meeting, but as drafted, the bill reduces participation.
My letter to the Utah Republican State Central Committee:
Dear SCC members,
It is my opinion that if the proposed bill should be amended, particularly lines 796 to 800.
If not, the bill should not pass.
794 (b) permits members of the registered political party to vote for neighborhood
795 delegates remotely or by absentee ballot;
796 (c) accepts a vote cast remotely or by absentee ballot, under Subsection (12)(b), for a
797 period of not less than two days after the day on which:
798 (i) all delegate nominees of the registered political party have been identified; and
799 (ii) the name of each delegate nominee described in Subsection (12)(c)(i) is made
800 available to members of the registered political party;
The 2 day system in the bill for the caucus will ruin it.
You either can't find out that night who won any race, or
you have to file before you know who won.
Someone running for State Delete that night and losing and running for Prec. Chair or County Delegate if they lose goes away.
I have talked to Sen. Bramble last night [Tues. Feb. 4] about these concerns to no avail.
We, the SCC, have spent months coming up with a Same Day Ballot to solve the concerns and not ruin the meeting.
If not amended or deleted, lines 796 to 800 ruins the meeting.
See:
as well as:
We have made huge improvements for the 2014 Neighborhood Elections.
For some of these, see:
For
purposed of reviewing Sen. Brambles 2014 SB 54 bill, and to allow the
Count My Vote language to be put directly in statute with an exception
to parties that qualify for the 4 items covered in the bill, I am
willing to temporarily look past many of the flaws from the initiative,
since they may not apply. See:
http://www.neighborhoodelection.org/flaws_in_count_my_vote_proposed_legislation
I
am opposed to changing the system we have to allow unaffiliated voters
to affiliate the day of election. It has proven to decrease cross voting
during a primary and still allow individuals to vote. I believe that
requirement, "allow unaffiliated voters to affiliate the day of
election" could be part of SB 54 on lines 792 to 793.
As you know, I am not in favor of changing the threshold percentage to avoid a primary.
See:
I have no problem with electing alternate delegates, and we currently allow counties to do so.
If Lines 796 to 800, were modified to allow our Same Day Ballot to meet the requirements of lines 794 and 795,
we might have a bill to work with.
To replace the the threshold percentage item, the following items could be discussed:
legal notice requirements for caucus and convention and
require election day affiliation for UAF so that law Isn't removed later.
We could add voter info protection and
remove straight party voting in the general.
We could also fix the check a buck program so it comes out of the taxes of the person that checked the box instead of everyone else.
require election day affiliation for UAF so that law Isn't removed later.
We could add voter info protection and
remove straight party voting in the general.
We could also fix the check a buck program so it comes out of the taxes of the person that checked the box instead of everyone else.
The final point is the bills timing. It is a big risk. See the critical dates from March 1st to May 15th.
Notice the bill would have to pass the legislature, both houses by March 13.
The Governor has until April 2 to sign or veto it.
The legislature has until May 12, to override a veto.
Count My Vote has until April 15 to get the signatures they need.
The
county clerks have until May 1st to the 15th to verify the signatures
and turn them in to the Lt. Gov. those that have requested to be
removed.
The Lt. Gov. has until June 1st to decide if the number of signatures meets the law.
We
do not know if between March 13th and April 15th if the number of
signatures coming in will increase or decrease if the bill passes. It
could either add fire to their initiative or crush it. It is a risky
move.
In
a nutshell, 2014 SB 54 lines 796 to 800 must be amended or deleted
before we even have something to discuss. (The 2 day requirement) it
isn't the 48 hours it is the other requirements.
Fred C. Cox
Salt Lake County representative to the State Central Committee
Monday, October 14, 2013
Count My Vote vs Flyover Counties and Towns
Utah's Neighborhood Elections force candidates to pay attention to rural areas
of Utah. Direct primaries encourage candidates to ignore rural areas and
communicate only by paid advertising. A direct primary would create
fly-over areas of Utah that will rarely get to meet their candidates
face to face.
Utah's Neighborhood Elections work to create a balance between population and Counties, similar to what the US Presidential Electoral System is designed to do.
See also:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865588184/My-View-No-caucus-means-fly-over-counties.html
Why keep the US Presidential Electoral System:
The US Constitution provided for a balance between small population states and large ones. This is one of the reasons for the Senate having 2 per state and the House being divided based on population.
The current US Presidential Electoral System keeps part of that concept so that voters in California, New York, and a few others do not decide who is elected, ignoring the rest of the country.
The original system was designed so that the electors nominated two candidates, one not from their state, and unless there was a candidate nominated by the majority of electors, the voting for president out of the top 5 nominees was done by the US House of Representatives, one vote per state. If two candidates received a majority of electors, the House would decide between just the two. Basically, the loser of the top two became the Vice President, who would take over if something happened to the President. The elector college system protected every state from being ignored.
By 1796 and 1800, partly due to political party influence, and because the public didn't want the US House to decide the election a movement to change happened and under the 12th amendment this was changed. One reason was to make sure the President and the Vice President could run together. The change made it so the electors would almost always reach a majority and therefore cast the final vote, and because of that, most states have now required that the elector vote based on which party they represent. Utah requires that an elector be replaced if they do not vote per party. See http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE20A/htm/20A13_030400.htm
Under the current system, Utah having 6 votes instead of 4 gives us a slight edge over population. Utah has decided to have a winner take all system. If Utah were to split our vote, it would carry less weight in the national election, but it would put Utah more in play.
While the current system doesn't work as originally intended, there is still some balance favoring smaller states, just barely enough to encourage candidates to campaign throughout most of the country. Without the US Presidential Electoral System , I believe that would be eliminated and I also believe the cities with the most population would be the locations where campaigning would occur, making the situation of ignoring parts of the country even worse.
Some information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Utah's Neighborhood Elections work to create a balance between population and Counties, similar to what the US Presidential Electoral System is designed to do.
See also:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865588184/My-View-No-caucus-means-fly-over-counties.html
Why keep the US Presidential Electoral System:
The US Constitution provided for a balance between small population states and large ones. This is one of the reasons for the Senate having 2 per state and the House being divided based on population.
The current US Presidential Electoral System keeps part of that concept so that voters in California, New York, and a few others do not decide who is elected, ignoring the rest of the country.
The original system was designed so that the electors nominated two candidates, one not from their state, and unless there was a candidate nominated by the majority of electors, the voting for president out of the top 5 nominees was done by the US House of Representatives, one vote per state. If two candidates received a majority of electors, the House would decide between just the two. Basically, the loser of the top two became the Vice President, who would take over if something happened to the President. The elector college system protected every state from being ignored.
By 1796 and 1800, partly due to political party influence, and because the public didn't want the US House to decide the election a movement to change happened and under the 12th amendment this was changed. One reason was to make sure the President and the Vice President could run together. The change made it so the electors would almost always reach a majority and therefore cast the final vote, and because of that, most states have now required that the elector vote based on which party they represent. Utah requires that an elector be replaced if they do not vote per party. See http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE20A/htm/20A13_030400.htm
Under the current system, Utah having 6 votes instead of 4 gives us a slight edge over population. Utah has decided to have a winner take all system. If Utah were to split our vote, it would carry less weight in the national election, but it would put Utah more in play.
While the current system doesn't work as originally intended, there is still some balance favoring smaller states, just barely enough to encourage candidates to campaign throughout most of the country. Without the US Presidential Electoral System , I believe that would be eliminated and I also believe the cities with the most population would be the locations where campaigning would occur, making the situation of ignoring parts of the country even worse.
Some information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Keep Fair Elections in Utah
The Salt Lake Tribune has published an op-ed that I wrote. You can read it at:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/56205410-82/state-caucus-system-party.html.csp
The idea is so everyone that was not at the meeting can find out who represents them and who to contact.
We are talking neighborhood town halls. They aren't just meeting to elect delegates. I believe the Count My Vote group would ruin that.
No, I didn't pick the photo that they used.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/56205410-82/state-caucus-system-party.html.csp
The idea is so everyone that was not at the meeting can find out who represents them and who to contact.
We are talking neighborhood town halls. They aren't just meeting to elect delegates. I believe the Count My Vote group would ruin that.
No, I didn't pick the photo that they used.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Why keeping the 60 percentage threshold to avoid a primary helps Fair Elections
We
already have a large percentage of contested races go to primary. If
we have more primaries, we are apt to have more last minute attack
pieces and more ethics problems. There will also be a need for more
political donations raised for the more expensive races. We don't need
to provide more power to
the lobbyists.
I had considered raising the threshold to avoid a primary, but after looking at the numbers, it doesn't make sense.
The 60% works, allowing a shot of a challenger to eliminate an incumbent and yet requires a challenger to be a strong candidate.
Based on the party released sheets since 2000 for state wide races or congressional races, At 60%, threshold to avoid a primary, 1/2 of contested races went to primary. If at 2/3 threshold to avoid a primary, 67% of contested races go to a primary and at 70% threshold to avoid a primary, 70% of the races go to primary. The last 2 numbers do not have to match, but they ended up doing so.
They tracked 44 races, 14 of which were not contested for the nominee. We realize it is only 5 or 6 contested races difference, but when you are looking at 30 contested races, a change of 5 is 17%.
70% would not have helped Sen. Bennett in 2010. He was not in the top 2 coming out of convention. In fact the more moderate Tim Bridgewater was selected by 57% of the delegates in the last round. Mike Lee managed to get 43% and make it to a primary. Sen. Bennett endorsed Tim Bridgewater during the primary, but with voters ticked at TARP and ObamaCare, they went with Mike Lee.
Sen. Hatch just barely missed eliminating Dan Liljenquist by hitting just under the 60% threshold to avoid a primary, and Jason Chaffetz just missed eliminating Chris Cannon by hitting just under 60% threshold to avoid a primary.
Both races went to primaries. The 60% line works fine. Raising it decreases the chance of eliminating an incumbent, and we get weaker challengers.
It was the caucus system that got Sen. Hatch, Sen. Bennett, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., Gov. Leavitt & Lt. Gov. Walker, etc. elected in the first place. The system is fine when they win, but if any of them lose, it is bad?
The democrats in SLCo. just added an additional vote at the end of their conventions to see if they can avoid a primary. They have no interest in the initiative passing and have been vocal not to support it.
The current system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy or famous. We think that is a good thing.
I like the 60/40, but initially thought I would be willing to go to 2/3 and 1/3. It would make it harder to boot out an incumbent at convention and but give someone new a little better chance of making to a primary. Gov. Gary Herbert would have most likely faced Morgan Philpot this year and Rep. Chris Stewart would have faced Dave Clark. Moving it back to 70/30 makes it almost impossible to kick out an incumbent at convention. That violates their 4th principle. This year, my friend Rep. Newbold was defeated at convention in her re-election campaign. If the threshold to avoid a primary had been 70%, she would have made it to the primary. I asked her last month if she favored changing the threshold to avoid a primary to 70%. She said no.
The proposal from the "Count My Vote / Buy My Vote" crowd wasn't just to raise the threshold to avoid a primary. It was to also remove multi-round voting or IRV and send all candidates that hit the lower range to the primary if someone didn't hit the higher range on the only vote. With that proposal, why raise the range at all?
"Fair. A system that provides inherent advantages to those who are incumbent, wealthy or famous is not acceptable." I agree and the "Count My Vote" proposals up to now don't follow their own principles. Perhaps that is why they deleted it from their list of 4 principles.
We already have a large percentage of contested races go to primary. If we have more primaries, we are apt to have more last minute attack pieces and more ethics problems. There will also be a need for more political donations raised for the more expensive races. We don't need to provide more power to the lobbyists.
Three of my other posts on this subject:
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/04/fair-elections-most-important-principle.html
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/04/thoughts-on-utah-neighborhood-elections.html
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/03/fair-elections-in-utah.html
I had considered raising the threshold to avoid a primary, but after looking at the numbers, it doesn't make sense.
The 60% works, allowing a shot of a challenger to eliminate an incumbent and yet requires a challenger to be a strong candidate.
Based on the party released sheets since 2000 for state wide races or congressional races, At 60%, threshold to avoid a primary, 1/2 of contested races went to primary. If at 2/3 threshold to avoid a primary, 67% of contested races go to a primary and at 70% threshold to avoid a primary, 70% of the races go to primary. The last 2 numbers do not have to match, but they ended up doing so.
They tracked 44 races, 14 of which were not contested for the nominee. We realize it is only 5 or 6 contested races difference, but when you are looking at 30 contested races, a change of 5 is 17%.
70% would not have helped Sen. Bennett in 2010. He was not in the top 2 coming out of convention. In fact the more moderate Tim Bridgewater was selected by 57% of the delegates in the last round. Mike Lee managed to get 43% and make it to a primary. Sen. Bennett endorsed Tim Bridgewater during the primary, but with voters ticked at TARP and ObamaCare, they went with Mike Lee.
Sen. Hatch just barely missed eliminating Dan Liljenquist by hitting just under the 60% threshold to avoid a primary, and Jason Chaffetz just missed eliminating Chris Cannon by hitting just under 60% threshold to avoid a primary.
Both races went to primaries. The 60% line works fine. Raising it decreases the chance of eliminating an incumbent, and we get weaker challengers.
It was the caucus system that got Sen. Hatch, Sen. Bennett, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., Gov. Leavitt & Lt. Gov. Walker, etc. elected in the first place. The system is fine when they win, but if any of them lose, it is bad?
The democrats in SLCo. just added an additional vote at the end of their conventions to see if they can avoid a primary. They have no interest in the initiative passing and have been vocal not to support it.
The current system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy or famous. We think that is a good thing.
I like the 60/40, but initially thought I would be willing to go to 2/3 and 1/3. It would make it harder to boot out an incumbent at convention and but give someone new a little better chance of making to a primary. Gov. Gary Herbert would have most likely faced Morgan Philpot this year and Rep. Chris Stewart would have faced Dave Clark. Moving it back to 70/30 makes it almost impossible to kick out an incumbent at convention. That violates their 4th principle. This year, my friend Rep. Newbold was defeated at convention in her re-election campaign. If the threshold to avoid a primary had been 70%, she would have made it to the primary. I asked her last month if she favored changing the threshold to avoid a primary to 70%. She said no.
The proposal from the "Count My Vote / Buy My Vote" crowd wasn't just to raise the threshold to avoid a primary. It was to also remove multi-round voting or IRV and send all candidates that hit the lower range to the primary if someone didn't hit the higher range on the only vote. With that proposal, why raise the range at all?
"Fair. A system that provides inherent advantages to those who are incumbent, wealthy or famous is not acceptable." I agree and the "Count My Vote" proposals up to now don't follow their own principles. Perhaps that is why they deleted it from their list of 4 principles.
We already have a large percentage of contested races go to primary. If we have more primaries, we are apt to have more last minute attack pieces and more ethics problems. There will also be a need for more political donations raised for the more expensive races. We don't need to provide more power to the lobbyists.
Three of my other posts on this subject:
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/04/fair-elections-most-important-principle.html
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/04/thoughts-on-utah-neighborhood-elections.html
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/03/fair-elections-in-utah.html
Friday, April 12, 2013
Fair Elections the Most Important Principle
In Lavarr's email to the SCC, (See below) the most important item is
what is missing. It is LaVarr's 4th principle, the one that surprised me
when this was released last month, just prior to our other meeting, because I believe
their proposals violate it:
http://utahpolicy.com/view/full_story/21947725/article-Principles-for-an-Acceptable-Nomination-Process
"Fair. A system that provides inherent advantages to those who are incumbent, wealthy or famous is not acceptable."
If Fair Elections are no longer a principle of theirs, than the opposite could be true, in which case, I have no interest in keeping them happy.
Also, from Daily Policy today, the ultimate, you will not do what we want so we are really going to do it anyway.
http://utahpolicy.com/view/full_story/22225960/article-Bob-Bernick-s-Notebook--Change-Can-be-Difficult--Especially-in-Primary-Elections?
"The Utah Republican Central Committee, meeting Saturday, apparently won’t even consider a change in convention candidate nomination rules that would address a major complaint by Utah voters: The ability of a few hundred state GOP delegates to drive relatively popular Republican incumbents from office."
"In short, even with a long list of possible candidate nomination changes, Utah GOP bosses would still be able to boot from office incumbents like former Sen. Bob Bennett (in 2010) and former Gov. Olene Walker (in 2004)."
Since these two didn't make even the top 2 candidates, the only proposal to change it is likely not to pass. We don't elect officials for life. This isn't the SCOTUS. They have no right to expect to remain in office if the voters don't agree, and it was the voters that elected the delegates in their neighborhoods.
This group has no advantage to turn in their initiative prior to the first couple of days of June of 2013, according to information I received from the Lt. Gov. office. They have to have their signatures all counted and approved at the county and state level in 316 days from the day they file, if I remember correctly, and prior to April 15, 2014. That is next year.
Fred C. Cox, Salt Lake County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"LaVarr Webb"
*To: *"LaVarr Webb"
*Sent: *Friday, April 12, 2013 2:12:32 PM
*Subject: *Memo to Political Party Leaders
M E M O R A N D U M
April 12, 2013
*From*: Count My Vote Executive Committee (Gov. Mike
Leavitt, Rich McKeown, Maura Carabello, Matt Sanderson, Kirk Jowers,
David Hansen, LaVarr Webb, Michael Shea)
*To*: Republican and Democratic party leaders
*Subject*: Update and Statement of Principles
As you know, over the last several months our group, along with many
other Utahns, has been discussing Utah’s process for nominating
political party candidates with the goal of increasing voter participation.
The current caucus/convention nominating process has many excellent
qualities that we wish to retain. The system allows candidates who lack
fame, wealth, and incumbency to compete for a party’s nomination. We
also appreciate the valuable grassroots nature of the process, with
neighbors gathering to discuss political issues and candidates.
We believe, however, that substantive reforms are necessary to reverse
the current trend of low voter participation and to ensure good
governance and creation of good public policy.
We believe this matter to be of such high importance that we are in the
process of filing the proper paperwork and putting together a large,
statewide signature-gathering effort to place a proposal on the 2014
ballot allowing all voters to choose an alternative candidate nomination
process. Given the results of survey research and focus groups, we are
confident that such a proposal would be strongly supported by most Utah
leaders, and would be overwhelmingly approved by voters.
As part of this process, we have engaged in productive and good-faith
discussions with party leaders, and many party members. We are pleased
that party leaders have been open-minded, creative, and desirous of
increasing participation in the political process. We appreciate their
willingness to discuss, negotiate, and seek solutions.
Some time ago, we developed three important principles that continue to
guide our deliberations. We have concluded that if the political parties
are able to make internal reforms to fulfill these principles, we will
not need to move forward with the ballot measure.
Here are our expectations for fulfillment of these principles:
1.The nomination process must be inclusive, accessible, and allow
participation in the caucus phase by all voters. A process that
requires individuals to attend a particular meeting at a particular
place at a particular time on a particular day excludes and
discriminates against those who may be away serving their country or
church, those who may be ill, those who may be required to work, or away
on business. Such a system is not acceptable. Fulfilling this principle
will require opening caucus participation over a longer period of time,
and providing an accessible method for votes to be cast by those who
cannot attend in person.
2.Primary election choices must be expanded so more voters have the
opportunity to determine a party’s ultimate nominees. This can be
achieved by: (a) raising the convention vote threshold to avoid a
primary election to between 70% and 80%; (b) certifying for the
primary-election ballot any candidate who receives over 20% or 25% of
the delegate vote on any ballot during the Convention; and (c)
eliminating multiple ballots. These modest changes would provide more
choices for the broader party membership in a primary election, which
will, in turn, boost Utah’s voter participation rate. While we encourage
the parties to consider all of these proposals, raising the threshold to
at least 70% is the minimum required to fulfill this principle.
3.Some degree of stability, consistency and permanence is necessary so
that changing political winds do not result in frequent changes to the
system. We recognize that nothing in politics is certain or lasts
forever, but we expect party leaders to work to implement long-term
internal or statutory solutions to provide stability and predictability.
Because of deadlines and the large amount of work involved in mounting a
signature petition drive to place a proposal on the 2014 ballot, we will
continue our ballot-measure preparations as we monitor the success of
the parties in adopting these reforms over the next several weeks. We
appreciate party members’ and leaders’ willingness to listen, analyze
and work with us.
*LaVarr Webb / *The Exoro Group
10 West 100 South #300 / Salt Lake City UT 84101
www.utahpolicy.com
<http://www.utahpolicy.com>/ www.exoro.com <http://www.exoro.com>
[email address and mobile phone number deleted for privacy]
Two other of my blogs on this subject:
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/04/thoughts-on-utah-neighborhood-elections.html
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/03/fair-elections-in-utah.html
http://utahpolicy.com/view/full_story/21947725/article-Principles-for-an-Acceptable-Nomination-Process
"Fair. A system that provides inherent advantages to those who are incumbent, wealthy or famous is not acceptable."
If Fair Elections are no longer a principle of theirs, than the opposite could be true, in which case, I have no interest in keeping them happy.
Also, from Daily Policy today, the ultimate, you will not do what we want so we are really going to do it anyway.
http://utahpolicy.com/view/full_story/22225960/article-Bob-Bernick-s-Notebook--Change-Can-be-Difficult--Especially-in-Primary-Elections?
"The Utah Republican Central Committee, meeting Saturday, apparently won’t even consider a change in convention candidate nomination rules that would address a major complaint by Utah voters: The ability of a few hundred state GOP delegates to drive relatively popular Republican incumbents from office."
"In short, even with a long list of possible candidate nomination changes, Utah GOP bosses would still be able to boot from office incumbents like former Sen. Bob Bennett (in 2010) and former Gov. Olene Walker (in 2004)."
Since these two didn't make even the top 2 candidates, the only proposal to change it is likely not to pass. We don't elect officials for life. This isn't the SCOTUS. They have no right to expect to remain in office if the voters don't agree, and it was the voters that elected the delegates in their neighborhoods.
This group has no advantage to turn in their initiative prior to the first couple of days of June of 2013, according to information I received from the Lt. Gov. office. They have to have their signatures all counted and approved at the county and state level in 316 days from the day they file, if I remember correctly, and prior to April 15, 2014. That is next year.
Fred C. Cox, Salt Lake County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"LaVarr Webb"
*To: *"LaVarr Webb"
*Sent: *Friday, April 12, 2013 2:12:32 PM
*Subject: *Memo to Political Party Leaders
M E M O R A N D U M
April 12, 2013
*From*: Count My Vote Executive Committee (Gov. Mike
Leavitt, Rich McKeown, Maura Carabello, Matt Sanderson, Kirk Jowers,
David Hansen, LaVarr Webb, Michael Shea)
*To*: Republican and Democratic party leaders
*Subject*: Update and Statement of Principles
As you know, over the last several months our group, along with many
other Utahns, has been discussing Utah’s process for nominating
political party candidates with the goal of increasing voter participation.
The current caucus/convention nominating process has many excellent
qualities that we wish to retain. The system allows candidates who lack
fame, wealth, and incumbency to compete for a party’s nomination. We
also appreciate the valuable grassroots nature of the process, with
neighbors gathering to discuss political issues and candidates.
We believe, however, that substantive reforms are necessary to reverse
the current trend of low voter participation and to ensure good
governance and creation of good public policy.
We believe this matter to be of such high importance that we are in the
process of filing the proper paperwork and putting together a large,
statewide signature-gathering effort to place a proposal on the 2014
ballot allowing all voters to choose an alternative candidate nomination
process. Given the results of survey research and focus groups, we are
confident that such a proposal would be strongly supported by most Utah
leaders, and would be overwhelmingly approved by voters.
As part of this process, we have engaged in productive and good-faith
discussions with party leaders, and many party members. We are pleased
that party leaders have been open-minded, creative, and desirous of
increasing participation in the political process. We appreciate their
willingness to discuss, negotiate, and seek solutions.
Some time ago, we developed three important principles that continue to
guide our deliberations. We have concluded that if the political parties
are able to make internal reforms to fulfill these principles, we will
not need to move forward with the ballot measure.
Here are our expectations for fulfillment of these principles:
1.The nomination process must be inclusive, accessible, and allow
participation in the caucus phase by all voters. A process that
requires individuals to attend a particular meeting at a particular
place at a particular time on a particular day excludes and
discriminates against those who may be away serving their country or
church, those who may be ill, those who may be required to work, or away
on business. Such a system is not acceptable. Fulfilling this principle
will require opening caucus participation over a longer period of time,
and providing an accessible method for votes to be cast by those who
cannot attend in person.
2.Primary election choices must be expanded so more voters have the
opportunity to determine a party’s ultimate nominees. This can be
achieved by: (a) raising the convention vote threshold to avoid a
primary election to between 70% and 80%; (b) certifying for the
primary-election ballot any candidate who receives over 20% or 25% of
the delegate vote on any ballot during the Convention; and (c)
eliminating multiple ballots. These modest changes would provide more
choices for the broader party membership in a primary election, which
will, in turn, boost Utah’s voter participation rate. While we encourage
the parties to consider all of these proposals, raising the threshold to
at least 70% is the minimum required to fulfill this principle.
3.Some degree of stability, consistency and permanence is necessary so
that changing political winds do not result in frequent changes to the
system. We recognize that nothing in politics is certain or lasts
forever, but we expect party leaders to work to implement long-term
internal or statutory solutions to provide stability and predictability.
Because of deadlines and the large amount of work involved in mounting a
signature petition drive to place a proposal on the 2014 ballot, we will
continue our ballot-measure preparations as we monitor the success of
the parties in adopting these reforms over the next several weeks. We
appreciate party members’ and leaders’ willingness to listen, analyze
and work with us.
*LaVarr Webb / *The Exoro Group
10 West 100 South #300 / Salt Lake City UT 84101
www.utahpolicy.com
<http://www.utahpolicy.com>/ www.exoro.com <http://www.exoro.com>
[email address and mobile phone number deleted for privacy]
Two other of my blogs on this subject:
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/04/thoughts-on-utah-neighborhood-elections.html
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/03/fair-elections-in-utah.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)