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.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Thursday, May 9, 2013
To the members of the State Central Committee
To the members of the State Central Committee, 2011-2013,
I
wish to go on record that I object to the attempt by some to create an
emergency or "surprise" State Central Committee meeting prior to the
State Convention next week with most of the "outgoing" committee
members. I would think we were more grownup that this.
Dozens
of you were contacted recently by email or phone to see if you are
willing to sign on to requesting a new meeting, apparently because
someone didn't like the results of the votes we took in the March and
April meetings. I didn't like all the results either, but that is why we
vote, to see what we as a committee can agree on and what we don't.
That email wasn't sent to everyone. This email is being sent to all the
ones listed on the State Party website. I am sorry if it no longer
applies to you or I get the email address wrong.
If
this "grassroots" called State Central Committee meeting were to be
held just prior to the convention, I believe it would disrupt those
members that have volunteered to help candidates and the constitutional
and bylaw issues being discussed. The delegates are coming as early as
7am and for the SCC members to be in a meeting after than time, that
eliminates those that are helping with credentialing, booths, passing
out flyers, or just meeting old friends and making new ones.
Many,
but not all SCC members are state delegates and should be asking their
final questions to candidates during this time period, or help their
favorite candidate get elected.
If there truly was an emergency, that would be one thing, but what would be the limit to the agenda items?
To
be further discussed that day at the Convention, they have to be items
that we have already voted on, or the C&B committee voted on
already, and already be in the call for the convention.
I hope that this email already finds you in agreement and that this "last ditch effort" has already failed.
My
likely assumption is that someone wants the SCC to change their vote on
the threshold to avoid a primary. While this is a critical vote, we had
it in March and again in April. We could not get 2/3 of those voting to
agree on changing the 60/40 system we have now. There was no confusion
on the vote.
Again, I ask that you reject
this apparent "sour grapes" move. If someone is worried about the County
My Vote / Buy My Vote group's threats, I say "bring it". We can kick
their butt.
Fred C. Cox, Salt Lake County
PS
For my opinion on the 60% issue, see:
Disclaimer, I was originally "maybe OK" with a change in percentage until I realized 2 things:
1.
Moving from 60% to 2/3 would, based on the last 12 years and the party
released stat sheets, increase the number of contested in-party state
wide or congressional races going to a primary up by 17%.
2.
The Count My Vote / Buy My Vote group in their last letter to us
threatened us to raise the threshold high enough so that later they
could push to eliminate multiple round or preferential voting, (only
have one vote) and have more than 2 candidates go to the primary. At
least they were open and honest about their motives. I would hope we
would be smart enough to see them.
3. See other reasons at the above link.[update. At least 50 members of the committee voted to re-vote the 2/3 threshold vote and hold the special meeting apparently because they didn't like the results last time. They are not proposing an amended proposal, it is the same one]
[update 2: The meeting was held and not only did they not get the 2/3 vote, they lost and didn't get a majority voting for this change. When it went to convention, 55% voted against this change.]
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Fair Elections Utah
My other blog on Fair Elections Utah vs the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote is at:
http://fairelectionsutah.blogspot.com/
http://fairelectionsutah.blogspot.com/
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)