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 County My Vote Utah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label County 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
Thursday, December 5, 2013
The Meet and Greet with Attorney General Candidates in West Valley
On December 4, 2013 I arranged a meet and greet opportunity at the Hunter Library large meeting room in West Valley to discuss which candidates to nominate as Utah Attorney General to the Governor for the currently vacant office, prior to the Utah Republican State Central Committee (SCC) meeting and vote on December 14th. The filing deadline is December 6th at 5pm. As a member of the committee, I will be voting for 3 nominees. I also have opened an account with the Lt. Governor to run for the Utah House District 30 next year. I felt like this would be a good chance for people in the area to give me feedback.
I invited specifically, via Facebook many average voters that I knew that live in my area (approx. 350), and posted the Facebook event on my political page, and shared the event on my personal Facebook profile, where I approach 3000 friends, State Central Committee Facebook Group. At least 400 people saw the event on Facebook that was linked back to my page. The potential was for several thousand to know about the event. I sent emails to approx. 170 people in my area that had sent me emails about issues when I was in office as a member of the Utah House of Representatives during 2011 and 2012. That list includes many democratic party affiliated and unaffiliated voters. At least one or two Salt Lake Republican Party senate chairs had forwarded the email to precinct chairs. I also invited via email, Facebook and by phone any candidates for AG that have filed with the Utah State Republican Party along with several that have said they were considering running.
Two of the candidates, Michael J. Wilkins, and Scott Burns contacted me and said they had conflicts and couldn't make it. A few mentioned they had other meetings that night but would be able to drop by at sometime during the discussion and a couple said they would be there the whole time.
Bret Rawson came early and was able to talk to one member of the SCC that had a conflict and needed to leave early, but had come to see if they could still catch any of the candidates. She had to leave prior to the 7pm start time. Brent Ward was there by 7pm. Several other attendees came and after an informal chance to talk one on one we began the meeting with a prayer and pledge.
The candidates were given 5 min. to introduce themselves. Bret Rawson started followed by Brent Ward. At that point Michelle Mumford was there and also took 5 min. All 3 moved their chairs to the front of the room to field questions from those that came. After a few questions had been answered by those 3, Rep. Dan McCay arrived. While he hadn't filed yet, he had told others he was considering running and was asked to come to the front and also answer questions and introduce himself. The other candidates agreed, mentioning they would rather have him upfront, than sit in the back and take notes on them with the potential of still running. Near the end of the meeting Sean Reyes came. He was able to also help answer questions.
If I had based success of the evening on a large turnout, we had a couple of dozen come. All that came are very active in politics. We had attendees from Salt Lake, Utah and Weber Counties. Many were members of the SCC, along with county party chairs, region chairs, senate chairs, legislative district chairs, precinct chairs, bylaw committee members, county and state delegates. We also had some spouses of those individuals.
Also attending was Utah State Karen Mayne, who represents much of the area. As a Democratic Party member, she wouldn't be able to vote on the 14th, but could give me feedback as to who to vote for. At the end of the meeting she was given time to ask a question. She wished them all success and simply asked all of them to make sure they had enough investigators in the AG's office. As someone that had passed several business related bills in the legislature, she could see that the AG's office didn't have enough investigators to research cases to enforce some of those laws, including businesses paying people under the table to avoid immigration and workers compensation laws.
Who didn't come? The "typical" average voter, with temperatures less than 15 degrees F outside. I doubt that there was anyone there at that meeting that didn't attend their neighborhood caucus election last year. While there were several that would not be able to vote on the 14th, these were people that were or had been county or state delegates, or other officers. These are people not afraid to spend the time to personally vet candidates.
Other than answers to specific questions, I learned that each of those answering the questions would all make a fine Attorney General. If the public was worried that we would not have a good replacement, if one of these attorneys is selected, concern should be erased. While they have huge differences in background and experience, they agreed on the answers to each question, whether it was from no-knock warrants to if the new AG should file to run in 2014. They were on the same page regarding balancing enforcement and protecting the innocent, and the importance of defending the US and Utah's Constitution, including are Bill of Rights. Each would bring their own strong but different abilities to that office.
I will not be able to vote to nominate 5 or 6, only 3. I hope to be able to listen to the other candidates next week on the 11th and 13th, and look forward to their speeches on the 14th. Limiting the Governor's choice to 3 will be tough.
I believe these candidates can be AG, and should also file to run in 2014, without over politicizing the office and still being able to restore the trust needed for it to succeed. They believe if they do a good job prior to the elections, they would be elected. They said didn't have to focus all their efforts on fundraising and campaigning, especially with our current neighborhood caucus elections, convention and primary system. At least one candidate not there at the meeting has said they would only be appointed if they didn't file to run in 2014. With these fine candidates, and with our current election system, I believe that would be a mistake. We want someone to be AG that is willing to face the voters next fall.
[Note: The approx. 180 SCC members are elected by county delegates, with a few exceptions, such as party chair, elected by state delegates. There are 4,000 of the state GOP delegates, but around 10,000 GOP county delegates. These delegates are elected at Neighborhood Caucus Elections. In 2012, over 110,000 came and voted for these delegates to represent them in vetting candidates and electing party officers.]
For more information, see:
http://www.utgop.org/utgop.asp
I invited specifically, via Facebook many average voters that I knew that live in my area (approx. 350), and posted the Facebook event on my political page, and shared the event on my personal Facebook profile, where I approach 3000 friends, State Central Committee Facebook Group. At least 400 people saw the event on Facebook that was linked back to my page. The potential was for several thousand to know about the event. I sent emails to approx. 170 people in my area that had sent me emails about issues when I was in office as a member of the Utah House of Representatives during 2011 and 2012. That list includes many democratic party affiliated and unaffiliated voters. At least one or two Salt Lake Republican Party senate chairs had forwarded the email to precinct chairs. I also invited via email, Facebook and by phone any candidates for AG that have filed with the Utah State Republican Party along with several that have said they were considering running.
Two of the candidates, Michael J. Wilkins, and Scott Burns contacted me and said they had conflicts and couldn't make it. A few mentioned they had other meetings that night but would be able to drop by at sometime during the discussion and a couple said they would be there the whole time.
Bret Rawson came early and was able to talk to one member of the SCC that had a conflict and needed to leave early, but had come to see if they could still catch any of the candidates. She had to leave prior to the 7pm start time. Brent Ward was there by 7pm. Several other attendees came and after an informal chance to talk one on one we began the meeting with a prayer and pledge.
The candidates were given 5 min. to introduce themselves. Bret Rawson started followed by Brent Ward. At that point Michelle Mumford was there and also took 5 min. All 3 moved their chairs to the front of the room to field questions from those that came. After a few questions had been answered by those 3, Rep. Dan McCay arrived. While he hadn't filed yet, he had told others he was considering running and was asked to come to the front and also answer questions and introduce himself. The other candidates agreed, mentioning they would rather have him upfront, than sit in the back and take notes on them with the potential of still running. Near the end of the meeting Sean Reyes came. He was able to also help answer questions.
If I had based success of the evening on a large turnout, we had a couple of dozen come. All that came are very active in politics. We had attendees from Salt Lake, Utah and Weber Counties. Many were members of the SCC, along with county party chairs, region chairs, senate chairs, legislative district chairs, precinct chairs, bylaw committee members, county and state delegates. We also had some spouses of those individuals.
Also attending was Utah State Karen Mayne, who represents much of the area. As a Democratic Party member, she wouldn't be able to vote on the 14th, but could give me feedback as to who to vote for. At the end of the meeting she was given time to ask a question. She wished them all success and simply asked all of them to make sure they had enough investigators in the AG's office. As someone that had passed several business related bills in the legislature, she could see that the AG's office didn't have enough investigators to research cases to enforce some of those laws, including businesses paying people under the table to avoid immigration and workers compensation laws.
Who didn't come? The "typical" average voter, with temperatures less than 15 degrees F outside. I doubt that there was anyone there at that meeting that didn't attend their neighborhood caucus election last year. While there were several that would not be able to vote on the 14th, these were people that were or had been county or state delegates, or other officers. These are people not afraid to spend the time to personally vet candidates.
Other than answers to specific questions, I learned that each of those answering the questions would all make a fine Attorney General. If the public was worried that we would not have a good replacement, if one of these attorneys is selected, concern should be erased. While they have huge differences in background and experience, they agreed on the answers to each question, whether it was from no-knock warrants to if the new AG should file to run in 2014. They were on the same page regarding balancing enforcement and protecting the innocent, and the importance of defending the US and Utah's Constitution, including are Bill of Rights. Each would bring their own strong but different abilities to that office.
I will not be able to vote to nominate 5 or 6, only 3. I hope to be able to listen to the other candidates next week on the 11th and 13th, and look forward to their speeches on the 14th. Limiting the Governor's choice to 3 will be tough.
I believe these candidates can be AG, and should also file to run in 2014, without over politicizing the office and still being able to restore the trust needed for it to succeed. They believe if they do a good job prior to the elections, they would be elected. They said didn't have to focus all their efforts on fundraising and campaigning, especially with our current neighborhood caucus elections, convention and primary system. At least one candidate not there at the meeting has said they would only be appointed if they didn't file to run in 2014. With these fine candidates, and with our current election system, I believe that would be a mistake. We want someone to be AG that is willing to face the voters next fall.
[Note: The approx. 180 SCC members are elected by county delegates, with a few exceptions, such as party chair, elected by state delegates. There are 4,000 of the state GOP delegates, but around 10,000 GOP county delegates. These delegates are elected at Neighborhood Caucus Elections. In 2012, over 110,000 came and voted for these delegates to represent them in vetting candidates and electing party officers.]
For more information, see:
http://www.utgop.org/utgop.asp
Thursday, November 21, 2013
5 reasons not to sign their petition
1. The "bill" Count My Vote, or proposed law is flawed, terribly so. Even some of
the strongest supporters admit the legislature will have to fix it if
this mess passes.
We tell public officials to kill these kind of errors in committee, not skip the public hearing, not read the bill and vote to send it to the floor of the legislature to decide if it should pass or not.
That is exactly what Count My Vote is telling people to do. Sign it, unread, and hope everyone realizes next fall it doesn't deliver. They could have amended it but chose not to and by law, can no longer amend the "bill".
2. This proposed law will cost taxpayers millions, $1 Million the first year and almost that every 2 years, with about 1/2 of the unfunded mandate being picked up by the less populous counties, the ones that the same proposed law will cause to be flyover places where the candidates and elected officials won't come anymore.
3. When Utah tried a direct primary in 1937 to 1947, it came with a run off primary, so the majority would elect the nominee. When the voting turn out and the cost drove the public and the media to reject that system - a compromise, caucus/convention and run off primary was created. We have that today. Count My Vote not only removes the nominating for general elections using delegates, it removes the run off primary system we have and nominees will no longer be selected out of a 2 person race.
4. The political royalty sponsors of Count My Vote loved the current system when the turnout to the neighborhood caucus elections meetings (GOP) was about 25,000, but when it exceeded 50,000 and 100,000, they no longer want that system because they no longer have the power. They don't tell you that the same delegates, proposed to be elected by closer to 10,000 attendees will still pick nominees such as the replacement for Spencer Cox.
5. They claim more people will be able to vote. A large percentage of voters will not affiliate to vote in the GOP primary election and those same people will not be able to vote in a "GOP" direct primary under Count My Vote. They will get to pay more as Count My Vote makes sure the parties will not be picking up the tab they currently do, it will be the taxpayers, unaffiliated or not.
Don't sign, just to vote on it later. Do read it. Do find out more. I trust if you actually understand what you will get, you will not sign the Count My Vote / Buy My vote initiative.
We tell public officials to kill these kind of errors in committee, not skip the public hearing, not read the bill and vote to send it to the floor of the legislature to decide if it should pass or not.
That is exactly what Count My Vote is telling people to do. Sign it, unread, and hope everyone realizes next fall it doesn't deliver. They could have amended it but chose not to and by law, can no longer amend the "bill".
2. This proposed law will cost taxpayers millions, $1 Million the first year and almost that every 2 years, with about 1/2 of the unfunded mandate being picked up by the less populous counties, the ones that the same proposed law will cause to be flyover places where the candidates and elected officials won't come anymore.
3. When Utah tried a direct primary in 1937 to 1947, it came with a run off primary, so the majority would elect the nominee. When the voting turn out and the cost drove the public and the media to reject that system - a compromise, caucus/convention and run off primary was created. We have that today. Count My Vote not only removes the nominating for general elections using delegates, it removes the run off primary system we have and nominees will no longer be selected out of a 2 person race.
4. The political royalty sponsors of Count My Vote loved the current system when the turnout to the neighborhood caucus elections meetings (GOP) was about 25,000, but when it exceeded 50,000 and 100,000, they no longer want that system because they no longer have the power. They don't tell you that the same delegates, proposed to be elected by closer to 10,000 attendees will still pick nominees such as the replacement for Spencer Cox.
5. They claim more people will be able to vote. A large percentage of voters will not affiliate to vote in the GOP primary election and those same people will not be able to vote in a "GOP" direct primary under Count My Vote. They will get to pay more as Count My Vote makes sure the parties will not be picking up the tab they currently do, it will be the taxpayers, unaffiliated or not.
Don't sign, just to vote on it later. Do read it. Do find out more. I trust if you actually understand what you will get, you will not sign the Count My Vote / Buy My vote initiative.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Below is my non legal analysis of the problems with Count My Vote
From Fred C. Cox, former member of the Utah House of Representatives
update, a smaller version of this can be found:
http://www.neighborhoodelection.org/flaws_in_count_my_vote_proposed_legislation
For more blog posts on this subject, see:
http://fairelectionsutah.blogspot.com/
In 2011 and 2012 I had more than 1300 floor votes on bills as a member of the Utah House of Representatives. That doesn't include votes in committees. (if you combined both years, I missed the fewest floor votes of any legislator of both parties and both houses). I was in the Senate Chambers during those 5 of 1302 votes. There were also special sessions, and I didn't miss any of those floor votes).
I have read through in excess of 1000 bills to decide whether or not to vote for them or not. Whether or not you agree with the policy being submitted as Count My Vote or not, as I ask that you vote against it now.
It is my experience that most bills that reach the floor of the house pass. The bad ones are killed in committee. We have had the public hearings on Count My Vote. They (Count My Vote sponsors) have opted not to amend their "bill" or proposed law after the public meetings where they received very little public support. The proposed law stands or fails as written.
In my opinion it fails. Below is my non legal analysis of the problems with Count My Vote. (I am not an attorney) You elect legislators to vote on bills prior to them becoming law. You elect a governor to also verify and sign the bill before it become law. The legislature can override a veto. The public can veto a bill that has less than a 2/3 vote in both houses by referendum.
You are not being asked to veto a current law. You are being asked to make a new law. It has to stand on its own. You don't know if someone else is going to fix it later.
Count My Vote is asking you to sign their "bill". It is over 20 pages. Before you sign it and long before it is to be voted on, You must read it for your self. I hope the following notes help you decide to not to sign the petition and to kill this "bill" before it is to be voted on.
It is my opinion that Count My Vote is poorly drafted. It is my opinion that it creates bad policy and makes our current system worse. Based on that, there is no reason to vote for it, even if you don't like our current system. It doesn't make it better.
My Notes (very rough form, you were warned):
Item #0
They can't amend the "bill" anymore. You must vote on it as it is.
20A-7-204.1 (4)a
Most of the current laws re: the initiatives are at:
http://www.le.utah.gov/code/TITLE20A/htm/20A07_020100.htm
quick stuff is here:
http://elections.utah.gov/election-resources/utah-initiatives
They missed the 3 days prior to public hearing required Lt. Gov. filing deadline per
20A-11-802 (1) (v)
They just filed their financials with the Lt. Gov. but didn't make up the previous one.
Items:
1. They change the status of the Lt. Gov. handling races crossing county lines. See for example lines 186 and 190, 230, etc.
2. They use 20A-6-301 paper ballots which isn't used any more (Maybe San Juan Co).
The reason I even post this one, is I am tripping over one word, "preferred". Currently, there are those that have run for office as unaffiliated and I am thinking this word v "registered" leaves the door open. I would like to get feedback on this prior anyone saying that someone doesn't have to be a registered republican to run as a republican.
Party affiliation is used in statute. Registered Party is used. I can see getting a registered political party affiliation. Preferred political party affiliation is not used, nor is there anything close to it. Preferred affiliation used in the same section only refers to a "Smith Card", requirements.
You will find that in 59-12-102. Smith's cards.
for the signature sheet of the voter signing the petition it uses the term "Party Affiliation of Registered Voter". That is clear enough to make sure that party members sign the petition, with the exception of one very large loop hole:
I think it interesting that line 453 uses the word "or" and 427 uses the word "and" putting it unclear if the person signing the petition needs to be currently registered to vote or just promises under penalty of a A Class A misdemeanor, that they will be registered by the end of March. How will the candidate know that they do that?
[update, Line 453 is designed to be "or". It creates problems however, as discussed below. Line 427 can be "and" as noted, but with the two "or"s on lines 426 it needs to be on 3 separate lines, so it isn't confusing. This is important as this section could make it so some 17 year old future voter is charged with a Class A misdemeanor for trying to help and not realizing in November than in March their plans had changed. This is the section that is supposed to make sure people signing the nominating petition realize the criminal penalty they face for incorrectly signing the nominating petition. In this case the proposed law takes away from the clerk the ability to make it more clear and tells them the exact wording to use. We should evaluate the policy of setting up a teenager to be a criminal . We want to avoid voter fraud, but perhaps another solution should exist.]
"Independents and Unaffiliated voters have said they want Parties to fund their own closed primaries"
CMV does just the opposite. It prohibits parties from doing that, or selecting their own nominees, and requires that be done by the state at the state expense.
Independents and Unaffiliated voters want to vote for any candidate in a primary funded by them. They want the primaries to be "open". Lines 305 to 308 allow a party to let anyone vote in "their" state run primary, or just a specific party and whether or not unaffiliated voters can vote. That is current state law and doesn't change.
While CMV isn't a true California ballot, you are correct that there is no limit to the number of candidates that could show up on your ballot. CMV has made it a little tougher than CA to get on so their might not be quite as many. I could get 100 to sign in my own precinct and someone could do the same in the other 21 precincts and we could get 20 on the primary Republican ballot.
Mr. Owens (sponsor letter op-ed to the SL Tribune) letter is like telling the Utah Legislature it can meet, but only pass resolutions and that it can’t pass laws anymore.
Yes, the caucus convention system would remain, but it couldn’t nominate anyone for public office, except mid term elections.
His argument is pretty deceptive. He needs to realize that any endorsements would not show up on a ballot like they claim. 20A–6-301, where they have put wording in isn’t used anymore. We use electronic voting machines or vote by mail ballots.
Unaffiliated would still not vote in GOP elections. They would pay more to watch.
Who benefits under Count My Vote / Buy My Vote?
out of the $144,000 they just spent, Exoro’s got $110,000 and Donald Dun’s group got $30,000. ie the political consultants.
update, a smaller version of this can be found:
http://www.neighborhoodelection.org/flaws_in_count_my_vote_proposed_legislation
For more blog posts on this subject, see:
http://fairelectionsutah.blogspot.com/
In 2011 and 2012 I had more than 1300 floor votes on bills as a member of the Utah House of Representatives. That doesn't include votes in committees. (if you combined both years, I missed the fewest floor votes of any legislator of both parties and both houses). I was in the Senate Chambers during those 5 of 1302 votes. There were also special sessions, and I didn't miss any of those floor votes).
I have read through in excess of 1000 bills to decide whether or not to vote for them or not. Whether or not you agree with the policy being submitted as Count My Vote or not, as I ask that you vote against it now.
It is my experience that most bills that reach the floor of the house pass. The bad ones are killed in committee. We have had the public hearings on Count My Vote. They (Count My Vote sponsors) have opted not to amend their "bill" or proposed law after the public meetings where they received very little public support. The proposed law stands or fails as written.
In my opinion it fails. Below is my non legal analysis of the problems with Count My Vote. (I am not an attorney) You elect legislators to vote on bills prior to them becoming law. You elect a governor to also verify and sign the bill before it become law. The legislature can override a veto. The public can veto a bill that has less than a 2/3 vote in both houses by referendum.
You are not being asked to veto a current law. You are being asked to make a new law. It has to stand on its own. You don't know if someone else is going to fix it later.
Count My Vote is asking you to sign their "bill". It is over 20 pages. Before you sign it and long before it is to be voted on, You must read it for your self. I hope the following notes help you decide to not to sign the petition and to kill this "bill" before it is to be voted on.
It is my opinion that Count My Vote is poorly drafted. It is my opinion that it creates bad policy and makes our current system worse. Based on that, there is no reason to vote for it, even if you don't like our current system. It doesn't make it better.
My Notes (very rough form, you were warned):
In a nutshell, CMV was drafted by 2 different people that seemed to ignore each other. One tries to strip the party designation away from any party that doesn't play by the new rules and nominates candidates not using the new system and the other person makes sure No One can be on the ballot unless they follow the new rules. If the Party doesn't sign up, none of the candidates will show up with the party designation, but that isn't true as if you get the signatures you are on the ballot for the party you pick. CMV allows the party to decide to opt out or not, but not really.
The unequal 2% barrier that CMV uses would likely fail in court. A Democratic governor candidate would need 2,812 signatures to be a nominee, a Republican would need 13,162. A Unaffiliated Candidate with 1,000 signatures currently and also under Count My Vote would need 1,000 to go straight to the general election.
http://elections.utah.gov/party-and-status
The "bill" Count My Vote, or proposed law is flawed, terribly so. Even some of the strongest supporters admit the legislature will have to fix it if this mess passes.
http://elections.utah.gov/election-resources/initiatives
has the "bill", fiscal note, and public meetings video. compare the slides from the Provo meeting and their current website. You will find they are different and that the public hearings used incorrect and confusing information about their proposal and what we currently have at best. For my opinion on the timing of the public hearings, if you missed them, see:
The unequal 2% barrier that CMV uses would likely fail in court. A Democratic governor candidate would need 2,812 signatures to be a nominee, a Republican would need 13,162. A Unaffiliated Candidate with 1,000 signatures currently and also under Count My Vote would need 1,000 to go straight to the general election.
http://elections.utah.gov/party-and-status
The "bill" Count My Vote, or proposed law is flawed, terribly so. Even some of the strongest supporters admit the legislature will have to fix it if this mess passes.
http://elections.utah.gov/election-resources/initiatives
has the "bill", fiscal note, and public meetings video. compare the slides from the Provo meeting and their current website. You will find they are different and that the public hearings used incorrect and confusing information about their proposal and what we currently have at best. For my opinion on the timing of the public hearings, if you missed them, see:
Item #0
They can't amend the "bill" anymore. You must vote on it as it is.
20A-7-204.1 (4)a
Most of the current laws re: the initiatives are at:
http://www.le.utah.gov/code/TITLE20A/htm/20A07_020100.htm
quick stuff is here:
http://elections.utah.gov/election-resources/utah-initiatives
They missed the 3 days prior to public hearing required Lt. Gov. filing deadline per
20A-11-802 (1) (v)
They just filed their financials with the Lt. Gov. but didn't make up the previous one.
They will be fined $100 for not following the law.
http://disclosures.utah.gov/Search/PublicSearch/FolderDetails/1411317
Problems with the CMV proposed law include: Line numbers are from the CMV "bill". Other references are from state law. You can look any of them up yourself at:
http://disclosures.utah.gov/Search/PublicSearch/FolderDetails/1411317
Problems with the CMV proposed law include: Line numbers are from the CMV "bill". Other references are from state law. You can look any of them up yourself at:
Items:
1. They change the status of the Lt. Gov. handling races crossing county lines. See for example lines 186 and 190, 230, etc.
2. They use 20A-6-301 paper ballots which isn't used any more (Maybe San Juan Co).
We don't use the separate but unequal paper ballots anymore.
See for example lines 112 to 114. Can't forget those candidates we put way over there. :)
Tell me 20A-6-301 violates Fed. Election laws, or the 14th amendment.
3. They let parties opt out but not really. See 100, 101, They repeat is at 129, 130 ,etc. It appears that if we don't play by their rules, (line 305) our party is stripped from the ballot, but they claim if I fill out the petition with signatures I will be on the primary ballot. Line 290 says General Election.
4. They claim an unaffiliated or democratic candidate can't get on our GOP primary ballot. While it is almost clear the petition signers have to be registered party members, or at least will be by the end of March the next year, and will be registered voters, at least by then, It isn't clear that the candidate is. See line 211. The use of preferred affiliation is not defined and is used only in current Utah code to describe Smith' Cards for going shopping.
5. We get to keep the GOP primary election closed, so the unaffiliated will get to watch at home and pay almost $1 Million the first year and $900,000 for the privilege, unless they affiliate. They can do that now.
6. Rookie mistakes with "and" and "or". See line 427, 3rd word "and" and 453, 1st word "or". As we all should know, in a state law, and and or are not the same. You are guilty of X if you are going 65 MPH and driving in Provo vs You are guilty of X if you are going 65 MPH or driving in Provo. In the last case anyone driving in Provo at any speed would be in violation of the law.
[update, Line 453 is designed to be "or". It creates problems however, as discussed below. Line 427 can be "and" as noted, but with the two "or"s on lines 426 it needs to be on 3 separate lines, so it isn't confusing. This is important as this section could make it so some 17 year old future voter is charged with a Class A misdemeanor for trying to help and not realizing in November that in March their plans had changed. This is the section that is supposed to make sure people signing the nominating petition realize the criminal penalty they face for incorrectly signing the nominating petition. In this case the proposed law takes away from the clerk the ability to make it more clear and tells them the exact wording to use. We should evaluate the policy of setting up a teenager to be a criminal . We want to avoid voter fraud, but perhaps another solution should exist.]
7. There is no run off primary election. While the Deseret News in 1946
See for example lines 112 to 114. Can't forget those candidates we put way over there. :)
Tell me 20A-6-301 violates Fed. Election laws, or the 14th amendment.
3. They let parties opt out but not really. See 100, 101, They repeat is at 129, 130 ,etc. It appears that if we don't play by their rules, (line 305) our party is stripped from the ballot, but they claim if I fill out the petition with signatures I will be on the primary ballot. Line 290 says General Election.
4. They claim an unaffiliated or democratic candidate can't get on our GOP primary ballot. While it is almost clear the petition signers have to be registered party members, or at least will be by the end of March the next year, and will be registered voters, at least by then, It isn't clear that the candidate is. See line 211. The use of preferred affiliation is not defined and is used only in current Utah code to describe Smith' Cards for going shopping.
5. We get to keep the GOP primary election closed, so the unaffiliated will get to watch at home and pay almost $1 Million the first year and $900,000 for the privilege, unless they affiliate. They can do that now.
6. Rookie mistakes with "and" and "or". See line 427, 3rd word "and" and 453, 1st word "or". As we all should know, in a state law, and and or are not the same. You are guilty of X if you are going 65 MPH and driving in Provo vs You are guilty of X if you are going 65 MPH or driving in Provo. In the last case anyone driving in Provo at any speed would be in violation of the law.
[update, Line 453 is designed to be "or". It creates problems however, as discussed below. Line 427 can be "and" as noted, but with the two "or"s on lines 426 it needs to be on 3 separate lines, so it isn't confusing. This is important as this section could make it so some 17 year old future voter is charged with a Class A misdemeanor for trying to help and not realizing in November that in March their plans had changed. This is the section that is supposed to make sure people signing the nominating petition realize the criminal penalty they face for incorrectly signing the nominating petition. In this case the proposed law takes away from the clerk the ability to make it more clear and tells them the exact wording to use. We should evaluate the policy of setting up a teenager to be a criminal . We want to avoid voter fraud, but perhaps another solution should exist.]
7. There is no run off primary election. While the Deseret News in 1946
may or may not like what we have today, they
didn't want to just toss out the expensive run off elections. Unlimited candidates for the primary, we could have 20 others in the race and one might
win with just 6% of the vote and not a majority.
8. According to the person that wrote the fiscal note (additional cost to taxpayers if this new law is enacted), I called, about 1/2 of the $1 million will be picked up by the counties, and most of it the smaller counties. It is like a state unfunded mandate, unless the Utah Legislature decides to fund from the state to the counties.
9. Count My Vote had a conference call with the County Clerks prior to the Fiscal Note being released. I don't know if that is like witness tampering or not. If the fiscal note is low by 25%, the legislature can toss Count My Vote out the window if they choose., even if it is signed by the petition and the majority of the votes vote for it. See 20A-7-214 (2).
10. Unlike a typical fiscal note for a Utah Law, no funding is provided for this proposed law. This sounds like what they do in Washington D.C.
11. Former Rep. Spencer J. Cox has a replacement being nominated by delegates selected at our neighborhood caucus election meetings. That system will remain, it is not changed by CMV, there will just be almost no one coming to the neighborhood caucus election meetings if CMV were to pass. They are concerned we don't have enough balanced attendees now, what will happen if CMV were to pass?
12. While 2% isn't a tough number of a state house seat, it is a tough number for state wide races. Much more for GOP candidates and the democratic candidates will need fewer signatures.
13. any party endorsements would not show up on a ballot like they claim . 20A–6-301, where they have put back door loophole wording in isn’t used anymore. We use electronic voting machines or vote by mail ballots. See item 2. I am hearing the Utah Legislature might get rid of 20A–6-301 or replace it in 2014 and if so it won't be there in 2015 if CMV passes. What happens then?
I hope this helps,
PS, they "cheated" as not all of the section in whole changed are included in the proposed law.
8. According to the person that wrote the fiscal note (additional cost to taxpayers if this new law is enacted), I called, about 1/2 of the $1 million will be picked up by the counties, and most of it the smaller counties. It is like a state unfunded mandate, unless the Utah Legislature decides to fund from the state to the counties.
9. Count My Vote had a conference call with the County Clerks prior to the Fiscal Note being released. I don't know if that is like witness tampering or not. If the fiscal note is low by 25%, the legislature can toss Count My Vote out the window if they choose., even if it is signed by the petition and the majority of the votes vote for it. See 20A-7-214 (2).
10. Unlike a typical fiscal note for a Utah Law, no funding is provided for this proposed law. This sounds like what they do in Washington D.C.
11. Former Rep. Spencer J. Cox has a replacement being nominated by delegates selected at our neighborhood caucus election meetings. That system will remain, it is not changed by CMV, there will just be almost no one coming to the neighborhood caucus election meetings if CMV were to pass. They are concerned we don't have enough balanced attendees now, what will happen if CMV were to pass?
12. While 2% isn't a tough number of a state house seat, it is a tough number for state wide races. Much more for GOP candidates and the democratic candidates will need fewer signatures.
13. any party endorsements would not show up on a ballot like they claim . 20A–6-301, where they have put back door loophole wording in isn’t used anymore. We use electronic voting machines or vote by mail ballots. See item 2. I am hearing the Utah Legislature might get rid of 20A–6-301 or replace it in 2014 and if so it won't be there in 2015 if CMV passes. What happens then?
I hope this helps,
PS, they "cheated" as not all of the section in whole changed are included in the proposed law.
The . . . is used. You actually need to read a lot more than 20 pages to see what sections of State law will be changed.
Misc notes:
Lines 209 to 211
I __ declare my candidacy for the office of __ seeking the nomination of the ___ party, which is my preferred political party affiliation.
Currently, a person declares their intention of becoming a candidate for a party. There is no certification when filing required as to what party they belong to, that is up to the political party. In this case, the state would take away the party's ability to control or vet or eliminate any candidate that wants to be their nominee.
Lines 209 to 211 DO NOT state that the ____ party is the party affiliation on their voter registration of the person running, it does have the words "which is my preferred political party affiliation" . I do not believe that is clear.
The person declaring their candidacy for an office, has to get signatures from people that are either now registered to vote or signing they will be registered to vote by 5pm on the final day of March. The people signing have to list their party affiliation of the registered voter. This allows someone that isn't 18 on Nov. 15th of the year before to sign their name and then later register to vote prior to the end of March of the election year.
Is Line 211 clear enough that the person signing to run as a candidate for that party, is a registered member of that party? I don't believe so. It uses the word "preferred" and not "registered". That is splitting hairs for some of the average public, but it isn't for the legislature, or Leg. Research. CMV representatives have specifically used the words Registered in response to questions. CMV uses no such word for the candidate.
Misc notes:
Lines 209 to 211
I __ declare my candidacy for the office of __ seeking the nomination of the ___ party, which is my preferred political party affiliation.
Currently, a person declares their intention of becoming a candidate for a party. There is no certification when filing required as to what party they belong to, that is up to the political party. In this case, the state would take away the party's ability to control or vet or eliminate any candidate that wants to be their nominee.
Lines 209 to 211 DO NOT state that the ____ party is the party affiliation on their voter registration of the person running, it does have the words "which is my preferred political party affiliation" . I do not believe that is clear.
The person declaring their candidacy for an office, has to get signatures from people that are either now registered to vote or signing they will be registered to vote by 5pm on the final day of March. The people signing have to list their party affiliation of the registered voter. This allows someone that isn't 18 on Nov. 15th of the year before to sign their name and then later register to vote prior to the end of March of the election year.
Is Line 211 clear enough that the person signing to run as a candidate for that party, is a registered member of that party? I don't believe so. It uses the word "preferred" and not "registered". That is splitting hairs for some of the average public, but it isn't for the legislature, or Leg. Research. CMV representatives have specifically used the words Registered in response to questions. CMV uses no such word for the candidate.
The reason I even post this one, is I am tripping over one word, "preferred". Currently, there are those that have run for office as unaffiliated and I am thinking this word v "registered" leaves the door open. I would like to get feedback on this prior anyone saying that someone doesn't have to be a registered republican to run as a republican.
Party affiliation is used in statute. Registered Party is used. I can see getting a registered political party affiliation. Preferred political party affiliation is not used, nor is there anything close to it. Preferred affiliation used in the same section only refers to a "Smith Card", requirements.
You will find that in 59-12-102. Smith's cards.
for the signature sheet of the voter signing the petition it uses the term "Party Affiliation of Registered Voter". That is clear enough to make sure that party members sign the petition, with the exception of one very large loop hole:
I think it interesting that line 453 uses the word "or" and 427 uses the word "and" putting it unclear if the person signing the petition needs to be currently registered to vote or just promises under penalty of a A Class A misdemeanor, that they will be registered by the end of March. How will the candidate know that they do that?
[update, Line 453 is designed to be "or". It creates problems however, as discussed below. Line 427 can be "and" as noted, but with the two "or"s on lines 426 it needs to be on 3 separate lines, so it isn't confusing. This is important as this section could make it so some 17 year old future voter is charged with a Class A misdemeanor for trying to help and not realizing in November than in March their plans had changed. This is the section that is supposed to make sure people signing the nominating petition realize the criminal penalty they face for incorrectly signing the nominating petition. In this case the proposed law takes away from the clerk the ability to make it more clear and tells them the exact wording to use. We should evaluate the policy of setting up a teenager to be a criminal . We want to avoid voter fraud, but perhaps another solution should exist.]
"Independents and Unaffiliated voters have said they want Parties to fund their own closed primaries"
CMV does just the opposite. It prohibits parties from doing that, or selecting their own nominees, and requires that be done by the state at the state expense.
Independents and Unaffiliated voters want to vote for any candidate in a primary funded by them. They want the primaries to be "open". Lines 305 to 308 allow a party to let anyone vote in "their" state run primary, or just a specific party and whether or not unaffiliated voters can vote. That is current state law and doesn't change.
While CMV isn't a true California ballot, you are correct that there is no limit to the number of candidates that could show up on your ballot. CMV has made it a little tougher than CA to get on so their might not be quite as many. I could get 100 to sign in my own precinct and someone could do the same in the other 21 precincts and we could get 20 on the primary Republican ballot.
Mr. Owens (sponsor letter op-ed to the SL Tribune) letter is like telling the Utah Legislature it can meet, but only pass resolutions and that it can’t pass laws anymore.
Yes, the caucus convention system would remain, but it couldn’t nominate anyone for public office, except mid term elections.
His argument is pretty deceptive. He needs to realize that any endorsements would not show up on a ballot like they claim. 20A–6-301, where they have put wording in isn’t used anymore. We use electronic voting machines or vote by mail ballots.
Unaffiliated would still not vote in GOP elections. They would pay more to watch.
Who benefits under Count My Vote / Buy My Vote?
out of the $144,000 they just spent, Exoro’s got $110,000 and Donald Dun’s group got $30,000. ie the political consultants.
Mitt Romney just blasted the caucus system because a majority doesn't decide. If you look at item #7 above, Count My Vote takes that away from Utah voters.
For more information on this subject see:
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Why the Sudden Urgency to improve Neighborhood Elections
Why the urgency?
Count My Vote makes mistake after mistake. If they think we are voting on the changes to save their behind, they are wrong.
Since the beginning of the year members of the republican state central committee have been working on trying to tweak the neighborhood caucus election system. A system that has worked well for years where 25,000 came, but the last two meetings it has doubled and then doubled again.
Count My Vote demanded changing the balance and getting rid of multiple round ballots, or changing the balance and taking the meeting out of the meeting. Creating a system that would favor the wealthy, the famous, incumbents and encourage people to stay home and watch Dancing with the Stars.
Of Course the demands were rejected. They still are. That doesn't mean reasonable changes can't be made and will.
The last central committee only one proposal was put on the agenda, one that didn't have a prayer to pass which was known in advance by most of the committee. The other consensus items were not even allowed on the agenda.
The reason for the "emergency" meeting is that those same people that have fought the Count My Vote people since they met in the Alta Club in May of 2010, that have wanted improvements to the system, have demanded the meeting, so we make the changes. If Count My Vote gets some of the issues solved at the same time, fine.
As you know from 2008 to 2010 neighborhood election meeting attendance doubled. From 2010 to 2012, meeting attendance doubled again. There is hope that in 2014, it will double again and 250,000 will attend. I know that The State GOP has a committee that is working to make sure we don't have the same growth problems for 2014 and that the system can handle the volume of those interested and still allow time to meet candidates and ask questions.
New proposals for 2014 include a better system for check in, including optional preregistration. The ability to optionally pre-file to run to represent your neighbors as well. The meeting will be designed to last for 2 hrs. or less, from 7pm to 9pm. There will be a pre-meeting from 6pm to 7pm to allow you to personally meet candidates to represent your neighborhood that have decided to run and for you to ask one on one questions. Even with large groups, changes to make sure members can agree on questions to ask neighborhood representative candidates with more time to hear from them.
I hope you will come again in 2014 and make the meeting better.
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? in 1946, after almost 10 years of a direct primary with run off, the media and public demanded the return of the Caucus and Convention System to replace the need for a run off election.
Even the Deseret News in 1946 was specific that they didn't want to just eliminate the run off, as that would turn the power over to money. They wanted that every day people would vote at local meetings. That is what we have.
I am not afraid of Count My Vote.
They have made mistake after mistake. Ignoring those prior to the announcement, of their initiative, where they had 25 people stand behind a podium at the capitol and they couldn't figure out for an hour how to attach their sign.
They said they needed $1.5 Million. Then had to loan themselves $50,000 just to hit 1/3 of that. They filed an initiative, that even some of their strongest backers find poorly drafted, with rookie wording mistakes. I have read through over 1000 bills and voted on them. This isn't ready to become law, even if you agreed with it.
They schedule public meetings at noon during a special session of the legislature? In Provo and other locations they used slides that incorrectly calculated less than 60 delegates from all parties control the will of 3 Million.
There were over 110,000 caucus attendees in just the republican meetings alone in 2012 and there were tens of thousands of delegates elected. Yes the slides have now been updated to be more correct, sorta like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Both sets of slides are online. Look at the ones at the CMV website and the ones shown in Provo on the Lt. Gov. Website. The attendees at the meetings were given worse than spin. If you are going to try to sell your product, at least be honest.
It is going to cost taxpayers about $1,000,000 initially and $900,000 dollars every two years to replace what we have with the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote initiative. We get no run off Election. There is no limit to the number of candidates that could be on the ballot.
Count My Vote even missed their last filing deadline with the Lt. Governor as required by 20A-11-802 (1) (v)
I am just getting started in the mistakes Count My Vote has made. To be continued.
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
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Fair Elections Utah Help us fight the Count My Vote or Buy My Vote initiative
Fair
Elections Utah
We call upon Citizens of Utah , the Utah Legislature, and Political Parties in Utah to protect the Utah Neighborhood Election, Caucus and Convention Candidate Nomination Process.
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.
We want neighbors discussing the best candidates and finding ways to improve this state and the nation. If the system is changed, we would be dropping off votes, but not meeting and discussing candidates and issues. That is what is wrong with Washington, D.C. They don’t listen to each other in a meeting. They watch from their offices. We need to change that, not perpetuate it.
We already have a "bypass" system, filing as an unaffiliated candidate. A candidate can go straight to the general election ballot. Someone who doesn't think they can win if vetted by average citizens asking one on one questions can still run and spend their money. Why should they be a political party nominee if they are going to bypass their political party?
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?
Our current problem with voter turnout is it has not kept up with the population increases. The voter turnout keeps going up but not as fast as the population. Some of that is the younger voters, where Utah has a larger percentage of them and they aren't, as a group, as involved. We need to educate those moving in and not understanding our system.
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.
The system and the experience attending the meetings can always be improved, but the “Count My Vote” initiative isn't the way to do it. Any changes to the system the political parties use to determine their nominees should be determined by the political parties.
Fair Elections Utah. Help us fight the "Count My Vote", or "Buy My Vote" initiative.
We call upon Citizens of Utah , the Utah Legislature, and Political Parties in Utah to protect the Utah Neighborhood Election, Caucus and Convention Candidate Nomination Process.
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.
We want neighbors discussing the best candidates and finding ways to improve this state and the nation. If the system is changed, we would be dropping off votes, but not meeting and discussing candidates and issues. That is what is wrong with Washington, D.C. They don’t listen to each other in a meeting. They watch from their offices. We need to change that, not perpetuate it.
We already have a "bypass" system, filing as an unaffiliated candidate. A candidate can go straight to the general election ballot. Someone who doesn't think they can win if vetted by average citizens asking one on one questions can still run and spend their money. Why should they be a political party nominee if they are going to bypass their political party?
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?
Our current problem with voter turnout is it has not kept up with the population increases. The voter turnout keeps going up but not as fast as the population. Some of that is the younger voters, where Utah has a larger percentage of them and they aren't, as a group, as involved. We need to educate those moving in and not understanding our system.
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.
The system and the experience attending the meetings can always be improved, but the “Count My Vote” initiative isn't the way to do it. Any changes to the system the political parties use to determine their nominees should be determined by the political parties.
Fair Elections Utah. Help us fight the "Count My Vote", or "Buy My Vote" initiative.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Count My Vote vs Fair Elections in Utah who is funding the Buy My Vote group
Major Count My Vote funding so far released.
Alliance for Good Government
http://disclosures.utah.gov/Search/PublicSearch/FolderDetails/1411317
The caucus & 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.
Our problem with voter turnout is it has not kept up with the population increase. The voter turnout keeps going up but not as fast as the population. Some of that is the younger voters, where Utah has a larger percentage of them and they aren't, as a group, as involved. Also those moving in and not understanding our system.
If you change the way our Utah primary's work, you could have two republicans in the general election ballot (or two democrats).
We have a system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, wealthy or famous. This is a good thing. Keep Fair Elections in Utah. Keep the neighborhood caucus election system.
Update:
I am glad Gail Miller is keeping involved. Helping children with reading.
It is sad she bought into the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote arguments however. Didn't Chris Cannon have endorsements from Pres. Bush, Mitt Romney and both of the then current US Senators at the time? Jason Chaffetz still won.
re: 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.
You like or don't like Sen. Mike Lee? Well 57% of the delegates didn't pick him to be the nominee. It was during the primary he was selected to be the GOP nominee.
Limiting? There were over 120,000 voters that participated in the 2012 Neighborhood Caucus election and meeting. The democratic caucus also had record turnout. People want a say on who shows up on the ballot.
The open primary is working so well in 2013 where 15% was considered good? You can't blame that on the caucus system. The one time Utah got rid of the caucus system our turnout went to 10% for a primary that included the US Senate. It was even that low in Salt Lake County. See August of 1946.
For more information see:
http://fairelectionsutah.com/
Alliance for Good Government
http://disclosures.utah.gov/Search/PublicSearch/FolderDetails/1411317
8/20/2013
Gail Miller $100,000.00
12/17/2013
James Swartz $25,000.00
12/6/2013
Leslie and Alan Layton $25,000.00
11/22/2013
Ian M. Cumming $25,000.00
11/4/2013
Thomas and Kristin Stockham $25,000.00
10/18/2013
Prime Holdings Insurance Services, Inc. $25,000.00
9/3/2013
Mike Leavitt $25,000.00
9/3/2013
Rich McKeown $25,000.00
8/26/2013
Garff Enterprises, Inc. $25,000.00
8/26/2013
H. Roger Boyer $25,000.00
8/26/2013
Maccall Management, LLC $25,000.00
8/26/2013
Merit Medical $25,000.00
8/23/2013
Dell Loy Hansen $25,000.00
8/23/2013
Donald and Susan P. Lewon $25,000.00
8/23/2013
John Price $25,000.00
8/22/2013
Kem C. and Carolyn Barnes Gardner $25,000.00
8/20/2013
H. Brent Beesley $25,000.00
8/7/2013
Mark Miller $25,000.00
7/18/2013
Dinesh Patel $25,000.00
7/18/2013
Gary Crocker $25,000.00
9/13/2013
Sandy Chamber of Commerce $24,000.00
12/28/2013
L E Simmons $20,000.00
10/9/2013
Khosrow B. Semnani $15,000.00
8/13/2013
Burton L. and Elaine L. Gordon $12,500.00
12/31/2013
John Miller $10,000.00
12/30/2013
David E. Simmons $10,000.00
12/26/2013
Dan England $10,000.00
12/11/2013
Anne Osborn $10,000.00
8/27/2013
JLS Holdings, LLC $10,000.00
8/12/2013
ThomasArts Holding, Inc. $10,000.00
7/11/2013
Bruce Bastian $10,000.00
7/10/2013
Omar Kader $10,000.00
5/7/2012
Khosrow B. Semnani $10,000.00
4/24/2012
William Nelson Shiebler $10,000.00
4/20/2012
Dell Loy Hansen $10,000.00
4/16/2012
Lunt Capital Management, Inc. $10,000.00
12/13/2013
Gail Miller $9,000.00
11/13/2013
Gail Miller $9,000.00
12/31/2013
Scott Keller $5,000.00
12/20/2013
R. Anthony Sweet $5,000.00
12/4/2013
Thomas Guinney $5,000.00
11/22/2013
Kristen M Fletcher $5,000.00
11/6/2013
Victor and Linda Lund $5,000.00
11/4/2013
E R Dumke, Jr. $5,000.00
10/16/2013
Ezekiel Dumke $5,000.00
9/30/2013
Edward McCartney $5,000.00
11/4/2013
Lonnie M. Bullard $3,000.00
12/31/2013
Clark and Jennifer Whitworth $2,500.00
12/31/2013
Don Stirling $2,500.00
12/30/2013
James Olson $2,500.00
The caucus & 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.
Our problem with voter turnout is it has not kept up with the population increase. The voter turnout keeps going up but not as fast as the population. Some of that is the younger voters, where Utah has a larger percentage of them and they aren't, as a group, as involved. Also those moving in and not understanding our system.
If you change the way our Utah primary's work, you could have two republicans in the general election ballot (or two democrats).
We have a system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, wealthy or famous. This is a good thing. Keep Fair Elections in Utah. Keep the neighborhood caucus election system.
Update:
I am glad Gail Miller is keeping involved. Helping children with reading.
It is sad she bought into the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote arguments however. Didn't Chris Cannon have endorsements from Pres. Bush, Mitt Romney and both of the then current US Senators at the time? Jason Chaffetz still won.
re: 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.
You like or don't like Sen. Mike Lee? Well 57% of the delegates didn't pick him to be the nominee. It was during the primary he was selected to be the GOP nominee.
Limiting? There were over 120,000 voters that participated in the 2012 Neighborhood Caucus election and meeting. The democratic caucus also had record turnout. People want a say on who shows up on the ballot.
The open primary is working so well in 2013 where 15% was considered good? You can't blame that on the caucus system. The one time Utah got rid of the caucus system our turnout went to 10% for a primary that included the US Senate. It was even that low in Salt Lake County. See August of 1946.
For more information see:
http://fairelectionsutah.com/
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)