My other blog on Fair Elections Utah vs the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote is at:
http://fairelectionsutah.blogspot.com/
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Why I am OK with LDS Church being pleased with BSA Membership Standards Resolution
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-statement-boy-scouts-of-america
Church Issues Statement on Boy Scouts of America
Salt Lake City —
For
100 years, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has enjoyed a
strong, rewarding relationship with Boy Scouts of America (BSA).
Recently, BSA has been reviewing a possible policy change in its standards for membership and leadership. Now that BSA has finished its review process and has proposed a resolution for consideration, the Church has issued the following statement:
“Over the past several weeks BSA has undertaken the difficult task of reviewing its membership standards policy. In their own words, this undertaking has been 'the most comprehensive listening exercise in its history.'
"While the Church has not launched any campaign either to effect or prevent a policy change we have followed the discussion and are satisfied that BSA has made a thoughtful, good-faith effort to address issues that, as they have said, remain 'among the most complex and challenging issues facing the BSA and society today.'
"The current BSA proposal constructively addresses a number of important issues that have been part of the on-going dialogue including consistent standards for all BSA partners, recognition that Scouting exists to serve and benefit youth rather than Scout leaders, a single standard of moral purity for youth in the program, and a renewed emphasis for Scouts to honor their duty to God.
"We are grateful to BSA for their careful consideration of these issues. We appreciate the positive things contained in this current proposal that will help build and strengthen the moral character and leadership skills of youth as we work together in the future.”
The statement they are referring to is at:
http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/MembershipStandards/Resolution/Resolution.aspx
Membership Standards Resolution
Recently, BSA has been reviewing a possible policy change in its standards for membership and leadership. Now that BSA has finished its review process and has proposed a resolution for consideration, the Church has issued the following statement:
“Over the past several weeks BSA has undertaken the difficult task of reviewing its membership standards policy. In their own words, this undertaking has been 'the most comprehensive listening exercise in its history.'
"While the Church has not launched any campaign either to effect or prevent a policy change we have followed the discussion and are satisfied that BSA has made a thoughtful, good-faith effort to address issues that, as they have said, remain 'among the most complex and challenging issues facing the BSA and society today.'
"The current BSA proposal constructively addresses a number of important issues that have been part of the on-going dialogue including consistent standards for all BSA partners, recognition that Scouting exists to serve and benefit youth rather than Scout leaders, a single standard of moral purity for youth in the program, and a renewed emphasis for Scouts to honor their duty to God.
"We are grateful to BSA for their careful consideration of these issues. We appreciate the positive things contained in this current proposal that will help build and strengthen the moral character and leadership skills of youth as we work together in the future.”
The statement they are referring to is at:
http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/MembershipStandards/Resolution/Resolution.aspx
Membership Standards Resolution
WHEREAS, it is the mission of the Boy Scouts of America to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Scout Law:
Scout Oath |
Scout Law |
||
| On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country And to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, Mentally awake, and morally straight. |
A Scout is: Trustworthy Loyal Helpful Friendly Courteous Kind |
Obedient Cheerful Thrifty Brave Clean Reverent |
|
WHEREAS, the Scout Oath begins with duty to God and the Scout Law ends with a Scout's obligation to be reverent, and that will always remain a core value of the Boy Scouts of America, and the values set forth in the Scout Oath and Law are fundamental to the BSA and central to teaching young people to make better choices over their lifetimes; and
WHEREAS, the vision of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare every eligible youth in America to become a responsible, participating citizen and leader who is guided by the Scout Oath and Scout Law; and
WHEREAS, for more than 103 years, programs of the Boy Scouts of America have been delivered to youth members through cooperation with chartered organizations that select adult leaders who meet the organization's standards as well as the leadership standards of the Boy Scouts of America; and
WHEREAS, numerous independent experts have recognized that the programs protecting Scouts today, which include effective screening, education and training, and clear policies to protect youth and provide for their privacy, are among the best in the youth-serving community; and
WHEREAS, the current adult leadership standard of the Boy Scouts of America states:
AND WHEREAS, Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether homosexual or heterosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting; andThe applicant must possess the moral, educational, and emotional qualities that the Boy Scouts of America deems necessary to afford positive leadership to youth. The applicant must also be the correct age, subscribe to the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle (duty to God), and abide by the Scout Oath and the Scout Law.While the BSA does not proactively inquire about sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.
WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America does not have an agenda on the matter of sexual orientation, and resolving this complex issue is not the role of the organization, nor may any member use Scouting to promote or advance any social or political position or agenda; and
WHEREAS, youth are still developing, learning about themselves and who they are, developing their sense of right and wrong, and understanding their duty to God to live a moral life; and
WHEREAS, America needs Scouting, and the organization's policies must be based on what is in the best interest of its young people, and the organization will work to stay focused on that which unites us, and
WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America will maintain the current membership policy for all adult leaders of the Boy Scouts of America, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
The following membership standard for youth members of the Boy Scouts of America is hereby adopted and approved, effective Jan. 1, 2014:
Youth membership in the Boy Scouts of America is open to all youth who meet the specific membership requirements to join the Cub Scout, Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, Sea Scout, and Venturing programs. Membership in any program of the Boy Scouts of America requires the youth member to (a) subscribe to and abide by the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law, (b) subscribe to and abide by the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle (duty to God), and (c) demonstrate behavior that exemplifies the highest level of good conduct and respect for others and is consistent at all times with the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law. No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Why my proposal should be considered today
When I can to my first state convention in 2002 as a delegate, I was glad my state house rep was there. I wouldn't have to run against him at a precinct meeting. He knew what was going on and knew enough about rules, etc. to be helpful. I didn't need someone to tell me who to vote for and he didn't. I came to the meeting having read all the proposals and knew which I would vote for and against. When Joe Cannon grouped all the ones he liked together and all the ones he didn't together, despite the fact that the 2nd bunch didn't work together, I was happy to have both bunches killed on the floor.
Over the years, a number of very smart people have argued why the current system can stay and used the state party constitution and bylaws to defend it. Others have argued why it is not allowed under those same documents. It is clearly that we don't agree what the documents say overall and attempts by both sides to clarify have failed.
This idea is very similar to what Thomas Wright proposed a year ago. I didn't like it then and wanted to create a loophole so counties still have the ability to send ex-officio delegates. This proposal has all 4000 state delegates elected precinct caucuses or at a caucus of delegates at the county convention for underfills. No delegates "off the top" and no other delegates. Yes, the limited voting representatives would be able to vote on some things.
http://www.1888932-2946.ws/ComTool6.0/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Fred%20Cox%20Proposal%20(3)(1).pdf
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
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Thoughts on the Utah Neighborhood Elections Caucus System
We
need to make sure the Utah neighborhood election caucus system is set up so it could be done in 2 hrs.
and we get the election results, not just back to the county and state,
but to those that missed it so they can still contribute and let their elected delegates and precinct leaders know what they think. The person that got a babysitter for 2 hrs to attend their neighborhood caucus should be able to vote
We need to coordinate with college and university campuses in Utah to make sure students know where a caucus meeting is, and Utah residents can register to attend and participate. Perhaps we should increase the number of locations the neighborhood caucuses are on college and university campuses. We can add another hundred thousand new caucus attendees in 2014.
The most anger I saw at our caucus was there were 4 that walked out after they realized the 6 people running for 2 state delegate spots were all Sen. Hatch Supporters. They weren't the typical, "I will vet the candidates and pick the best one and also listen to your comments" type people. My precinct had been stacked. These 4 people had come for the first time and felt like someone in office for 36 years was already too long. I assured them I wasn't going to be voting for Sen. Hatch as my first or 2nd choice. He was my 3rd choice. It made them feel better.
The current system does work. I spent a year trying to get a candidate elected running against Bob Bennett and we got Mike Lee. He has done better than I expected. He was my 3rd or 4th choice. He was almost eliminated at convention because his campaign team didn't go for the 2nd or 3rd choice vote. Tim Bridgewater did. He knew he wasn't my first choice, but was willing to accept my 2nd choice vote. When my candidate lost, I went with Tim Bridgewater. There was very few Eagar, Bridgewater or Bennett 2nd choice votes that went or would have gone to Mike Lee. That is why Tim Bridgewater received almost 60% of the delegate vote.
It was during the Primary Election that Mike Lee was selected to be the Republican Party Nominee even though Tim Bridgewater was endorsed by Sen. Bennett.
During a mid term selection for the Utah State House of Representatives, I won against the West Valley City Mayor's mom in West Valley for a special caucus on the 2nd vote. She was ahead on the 1st round. There is no way I would have won against her in a primary. If I had had 8.5 people change their mind per precinct this last year, I would have won against another incumbent that had 30 plus years of West Valley politics and elected offices. It is hard to beat an incumbent. We shouldn't make it harder by raising the primary avoiding threshold to 70% or more.
The 60% primary avoiding threshold has worked well. If we adjust it at all, it should be kept as close to the current number as possible. Raising it to 2/3 would have created a primary in 2012 for Gary Herbert, and Chris Stewart. It would have made sure Sen. Hatch didn't buy himself out of at Primary. He didn't succeed, even with $5 Million and large bonuses to his paid staff on the line.
Many think rising the threshold could be good, but you have to remember that Jason Chaffetz almost hit 60% when running against Chris Cannon. He still won in the primary election. Since then in Utah, we have had good candidates willing to run against incumbents. That is a good thing. We do not want to destroy that because of a threat by a powerful lobbyist group.
"A system that provides inherent advantages to those who are incumbent, wealthy or famous is not acceptable." One principle we all can support.
http://www.fairelectionsutah.com/
We need to coordinate with college and university campuses in Utah to make sure students know where a caucus meeting is, and Utah residents can register to attend and participate. Perhaps we should increase the number of locations the neighborhood caucuses are on college and university campuses. We can add another hundred thousand new caucus attendees in 2014.
The most anger I saw at our caucus was there were 4 that walked out after they realized the 6 people running for 2 state delegate spots were all Sen. Hatch Supporters. They weren't the typical, "I will vet the candidates and pick the best one and also listen to your comments" type people. My precinct had been stacked. These 4 people had come for the first time and felt like someone in office for 36 years was already too long. I assured them I wasn't going to be voting for Sen. Hatch as my first or 2nd choice. He was my 3rd choice. It made them feel better.
The current system does work. I spent a year trying to get a candidate elected running against Bob Bennett and we got Mike Lee. He has done better than I expected. He was my 3rd or 4th choice. He was almost eliminated at convention because his campaign team didn't go for the 2nd or 3rd choice vote. Tim Bridgewater did. He knew he wasn't my first choice, but was willing to accept my 2nd choice vote. When my candidate lost, I went with Tim Bridgewater. There was very few Eagar, Bridgewater or Bennett 2nd choice votes that went or would have gone to Mike Lee. That is why Tim Bridgewater received almost 60% of the delegate vote.
It was during the Primary Election that Mike Lee was selected to be the Republican Party Nominee even though Tim Bridgewater was endorsed by Sen. Bennett.
During a mid term selection for the Utah State House of Representatives, I won against the West Valley City Mayor's mom in West Valley for a special caucus on the 2nd vote. She was ahead on the 1st round. There is no way I would have won against her in a primary. If I had had 8.5 people change their mind per precinct this last year, I would have won against another incumbent that had 30 plus years of West Valley politics and elected offices. It is hard to beat an incumbent. We shouldn't make it harder by raising the primary avoiding threshold to 70% or more.
The 60% primary avoiding threshold has worked well. If we adjust it at all, it should be kept as close to the current number as possible. Raising it to 2/3 would have created a primary in 2012 for Gary Herbert, and Chris Stewart. It would have made sure Sen. Hatch didn't buy himself out of at Primary. He didn't succeed, even with $5 Million and large bonuses to his paid staff on the line.
Many think rising the threshold could be good, but you have to remember that Jason Chaffetz almost hit 60% when running against Chris Cannon. He still won in the primary election. Since then in Utah, we have had good candidates willing to run against incumbents. That is a good thing. We do not want to destroy that because of a threat by a powerful lobbyist group.
"A system that provides inherent advantages to those who are incumbent, wealthy or famous is not acceptable." One principle we all can support.
http://www.fairelectionsutah.com/
Monday, April 1, 2013
Fred Cox for Utah Republican State Central Committee
Fred C. Cox
is a current member of the Utah Republican State Central Committee representing
Salt Lake County and is a former member of the Utah
House of Representatives.
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." The problem is
their proposals would do exactly that.
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.
Bypassing
the Caucus / Convention System will NOT create more participation. 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.
The current
system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy or famous. I think this is a
good thing.
We need to
make sure the Utah neighborhood election caucus system is set up so it
could be done in 2 hrs. and we get the election results, not just back to the
county and state, but to those that missed it so they can still contribute and
let their elected delegates and precinct leaders know what they think. The
person that got a babysitter for 2 hrs to attend their neighborhood caucus
should be able to vote
We need to coordinate with college and university campuses in Utah to make sure students know where a caucus meeting is, and Utah residents can register to vote as declared Republicans to attend and participate. We should review and increase the number of locations the neighborhood caucus meetings are held on college and university campuses. We should set a goal to add another hundred thousand new caucus attendees in 2014.
We need to coordinate with college and university campuses in Utah to make sure students know where a caucus meeting is, and Utah residents can register to vote as declared Republicans to attend and participate. We should review and increase the number of locations the neighborhood caucus meetings are held on college and university campuses. We should set a goal to add another hundred thousand new caucus attendees in 2014.
Vote for Fred Cox to fight to
improve, but not gut, the neighborhood caucus and convention system.
COMMUNITY
SERVICE
• Utah State House of Representatives, January
2011 through December 2012.
• Utah
Republican State Central Committee, 2011 to present.
• Utah Republican State Delegate 2002-2003, 2005-2011.
• Salt Lake County Central Committee, 2010 though
2012.
• Salt Lake
County Republican Legislative District Chair, August 2010 to January 2011.
•
ChamberWest Regional Chamber of Commerce Government Action Committee, Nov. 2010
to present
• AIA Utah, Government Affairs Committee,
January 2008 to January 2011 and January 2013 to present.
• Campaign
Volunteer and/or Consultant for the following:
Ron Bigelow, Utah House of Representatives, 1994 to
2010.
Jason Chaffetz, U.S. House of Representatives, Utah 3rd District, May 2008 through 2010.
Kevin
Fayles, Candidate for Mayor, West Valley City, UT, 2009.
Dave
Hansen, Utah State Republican Party Chair, March 2009
to June 2009.
Cherilyn
Eagar, 2010 US Senate Race, May 2009 to May 2010,
Tim
Bridgewater, 2010 US Senate Race, May and June 2010.
Morgan
Philpot, 2010 U.S. House of Representatives, Utah 2nd District, June 2010 to November
2010.
Daniel W.
Thatcher, 2010 Utah State Senate, District 12, August 2010 to
November 2010
• Church
Based community service
CONTACT
INFORMATION:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)