In support of Aaron Gabrielson for Utah State Republican Party Chair

The movement of the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote group in many cases is to make sure the establishment has more power than grassroots. It is my opinion watching them personally this last month that Aaron Gabrielson wants to help both groups (establishment and grassroots) and James doesn't. Do we really want to hack off a very vocal part of our party? For all the move to be inclusive, the establishment wants more to participate as long as they maintain the power. This is a bad direction to go.

Four years ago, I supported Dave Hansen for state party chair and very actively helped his campaign because I believed we would have a divided state party if the other candidates won and Dave would keep the party whole. I also supported Morgan Philpot at that time because I believed he would help to make sure we didn't have a divided party. In 2010 after watching Dave attend rallies and be supportive of those in the party wanting to push back against the Federal Government, I knew I made the correct choice. I have been on different sides than Dave on other races and other causes, but Utah was better because of his service. Dave was also fair to all the US Senate candidates in 2010. I watched other states such as Nevada react poorly to 2010 and it showed in 2012.

One of the reasons I ran to be a member of the state central committee was I felt like a large percentage of the committee was trying to shift the balance of power away from the state delegates and more to the state central committee and was amazed to watch the votes of the state central committee. I attended for a year before running to be a member. I do agree there needs to be a balance of power between the delegates and the state central committee. I have voted against changes I believed shifted the power to far either way. 

I voted for Thomas Wright for State Party Chair 2 years ago, despite concerns because I felt the other choices would not help unify the party. This year I am supporting Aaron Gabrielson for similar reasons. I believe Aaron will keep the party whole and growing.

How much did Aaron raise to help fight Matheson in 2008 and 2010? How much has he raised to even run for this election. I am not worried about Aaron's ability to raise money. More importantly to me was Aaron's ability to find 80 volunteers to help him fight to get good Republican's elected when he didn't have a title and he didn't have to do anything.

I am worried about the establishment movement to crush grassroots. I believe Aaron will help unify. Remember that a large chunk of the funds Aaron raised for state raises in 2012 was to go to Rep. Kraig Powell, hardly a "TEA Party" favorite, but a good man representing his constituents and the Republican Party candidate.

For the last week or two I have been also asking myself why LaVarr Webb who leads the powerful lobbyist and insider  Exoro Group  and also the Count My Vote / Buy My My Vote group working to bypass the neighborhood election, caucus and convention system  doesn't want Aaron to win ? 


I believe we should improve, but not gut, our neighborhood election, caucus and convention system. The Caucus System in Utah is the best way to make sure a grass roots process can work over large amounts of money. It is the only way someone with $100,000 can go against someone with $2,000,000 in election funds. 

We have a system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, wealthy or famous. This is a good thing. 

While all 3 candidates claim they are in favor of fighting to support and keep the caucus system, I do not believe we should do this by caving into their demands . Out of the 3 candidates, the one that has the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote group the most concerned is Aaron Gabrielson. He is also the one that has impressed me based on his actions and not just his words.

Aaron Gabrielson is also someone involved with social media, and didn't just sign up on Facebook this last month. He is relatively young and energetic. One of the major focus groups that the Republican Party needs to help understand the party are the young voters.  

Join me in supporting  Aaron Gabrielson for Utah State Republican Party Chair. Let's keep the party whole, add the younger voters and and let's fight to keep our neighborhood election, caucus and convention system.

Fair Elections Utah

My other blog on Fair Elections Utah vs the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote is at:
http://fairelectionsutah.blogspot.com/

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
 

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

Fair Elections in Utah vs Count My Vote

“Count my Vote” or Buy my Vote?                   
Fred C. Cox, Salt Lake County

One of the principles of those wanting to gut the neighborhood election caucus meeting and convention system we have in Utah, is this:

" A system that provides inherent advantages to those who are incumbent, wealthy or famous is not acceptable." http://utahpolicy.com/view/full_story/21947725/article-Principles-for-an-Acceptable-Nomination-Process

I find this statement amazing, because I agree with it. The proposal to bypass the caucus system and also change the percentage to avoid a primary to 85%/15% will actually create "inherent advantages to those who are incumbent, wealthy or famous". It is designed to do exactly what the supporters of this proposal state are against their principles.

If you are going to run as a democratic candidate, you have to comply with their rules. If you are going to run as a republican, you have to comply with their rules. If you want to run and not have those rules, you can run as an unaffiliated or independent, or run as a 3rd party candidate. This is an attempt to change the party rules by state law, bypassing the party and is even an attempt to change the law bypassing the legislature. That is called being a pirate.

There are 104 members in the Utah State Legislature. It contains both Democratic members and Republican members, liberal, moderate and conservative. It is simply amazing that not one of them were willing to run a bill to do what this group plans to do by a voter initiative. Why? It isn't that all incumbents win under the current system. In fact there were 2 members of the Utah House that lost at convention this last election, a half dozen that lost in a primary election and 2 more than lost in a general election. There were others that decided not to run.

The current system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy or famous. Perhaps that is the problem this group is trying to solve.

The Caucus System in Utah is the best way to make sure grass roots movements can work over large amounts of money. It is the only way someone with $100,000 can go against someone with $2,000,000 in election funds.

There were about 120,000 republicans in Utah that went to the neighborhood caucus elections in 2012 to elect the 4000 State Delegates. Add to those numbers the democrats and the primary elections.  Certainly the municipal elections didn't do any better in voter representation.

Most people who want the caucus system changed, there are exceptions, are frustrated that they don't have as much power as people who show up to the neighborhood election caucus meetings. It doesn't take money; you just have to show up.

Bypassing the Caucus / Convention System will NOT create more participation. Approx. one out of every 4 or 5 republicans attended their neighborhood election caucus meeting this last year. One in every three told a KSL poll they were involved or attending. There are 4000 state delegates that spend countless hours vetting candidates to be on the ballot. They are selected by those that attend the neighborhood election caucus meeting. You just have to attend.

When people realize this will give them less of a chance to participate but give media and power brokers more power, they will not sign any initiative. This is a power grab.

It doesn't mean things can't be better, but this isn't the way to do it.


This proposal isn't "Count my Vote" it is “Buy my Vote”, funded like a hostile corporate takeover by DC lobbyists acting like pirates.  

 Don't let them Buy your Vote, Keep the Caucus System.   

Read the State Democratic response:
http:www.fairelectionsutah.com/NewsletterLetterfromtheChairUtahDemocraticParty.pdf


(Print to .pdf of the letter to replace the one updated on April 12, 2013)