Open Primary?
Last week, the Deseret News ran a very interesting column on the pros and cons of the open primary. As someone who grew up in a primary state and who spent the last 15 years in a caucus state, count me as being squarely in the caucus camp and here is why....
Lavarr Webb brings up the obvious cons of an open primary system - out of control 3rd party special interest ads, cronyism run amok (what you have here and now is no where NEAR what it would be in a primary system) and the perrenial rule of incumbents with name recognition that no amount of money can buy, but oh the money that name recognition draws. What he doesn't tell you is that the same con that Frank Pignelli uses against the caucus system is one of the same cons of the primary system. You still only have about 3000-4000 people deciding who will be the nominee....the ones who bother to show up to vote in the primary! The biggest "pro" caucus argument that I can give is how EASY it is to get involved. All you have to do is SHOW UP on caucus night. Once you show up, decide how far "up" you want to go and odds are, you will get there. You want to go to the state convention to decide who runs for Senate, come to caucus and run for a delegate position! It's that simple!
Mr. Pignelli starts off his argument against the caucus system with a contradiction. He starts off stating that "Powerful incumbents are shifting their focus of attention to those who will determine their fate: 3,000 or so current and potential delegates that will attend the Utah Republican convention in June 2010. History demonstrates millions will be spent to influence this small universe of activists, a fact LaVarr ignores." and then he turns around and uses the Chaffetz/Cannon race in 2008 as his example. The problem is that the Chaffetz/Cannon race shows the exact opposite. Representative Cannon had a 6-1 campaign warchest advantage over the neophyte Chaffetz. All Jason Chaffetz had was drive, determination and a cadre of dedicated volunteers to help him overcome a HUGE disadvantage and they did it. Come to think of it, he reminds me of another outsider who overcame a huge monitary and name recognition deficit who became one of the progressive movements patron saints - Paul David Wellstone!
Mr. Pignelli calls the caucus system "an archaic throwback to the early 20th century." What he misses though is that the caucus system is also the most "progressive" system. It is there that a virtual unknown who has a vision and the will to push him or herself to the limit can succeed. It is the ultimate equalizer when you have an incumbent who is suffering from a severe case of DC-itis.
I can think of no better outlet for the average Joe or Jane Voter who cares about who represents them to truly have their say than in a caucus state. For you never know when or where the next Jason Chaffetz or Paul Wellstone will show up - but boy when he or she does the excitement that this person brings to to electorate is almost always ELECTRIC!
Lavarr Webb brings up the obvious cons of an open primary system - out of control 3rd party special interest ads, cronyism run amok (what you have here and now is no where NEAR what it would be in a primary system) and the perrenial rule of incumbents with name recognition that no amount of money can buy, but oh the money that name recognition draws. What he doesn't tell you is that the same con that Frank Pignelli uses against the caucus system is one of the same cons of the primary system. You still only have about 3000-4000 people deciding who will be the nominee....the ones who bother to show up to vote in the primary! The biggest "pro" caucus argument that I can give is how EASY it is to get involved. All you have to do is SHOW UP on caucus night. Once you show up, decide how far "up" you want to go and odds are, you will get there. You want to go to the state convention to decide who runs for Senate, come to caucus and run for a delegate position! It's that simple!
Mr. Pignelli starts off his argument against the caucus system with a contradiction. He starts off stating that "Powerful incumbents are shifting their focus of attention to those who will determine their fate: 3,000 or so current and potential delegates that will attend the Utah Republican convention in June 2010. History demonstrates millions will be spent to influence this small universe of activists, a fact LaVarr ignores." and then he turns around and uses the Chaffetz/Cannon race in 2008 as his example. The problem is that the Chaffetz/Cannon race shows the exact opposite. Representative Cannon had a 6-1 campaign warchest advantage over the neophyte Chaffetz. All Jason Chaffetz had was drive, determination and a cadre of dedicated volunteers to help him overcome a HUGE disadvantage and they did it. Come to think of it, he reminds me of another outsider who overcame a huge monitary and name recognition deficit who became one of the progressive movements patron saints - Paul David Wellstone!
Mr. Pignelli calls the caucus system "an archaic throwback to the early 20th century." What he misses though is that the caucus system is also the most "progressive" system. It is there that a virtual unknown who has a vision and the will to push him or herself to the limit can succeed. It is the ultimate equalizer when you have an incumbent who is suffering from a severe case of DC-itis.
I can think of no better outlet for the average Joe or Jane Voter who cares about who represents them to truly have their say than in a caucus state. For you never know when or where the next Jason Chaffetz or Paul Wellstone will show up - but boy when he or she does the excitement that this person brings to to electorate is almost always ELECTRIC!
Labels: Primary vs. Caucus
posted by The Lady Logician at
10:37 PM
2 Comments:
From what little I've seen of caucusing system, it seems outdated and dysfunctional. I think the bigger problem is having all these candidates in the general election, and would use a second week in September open primary to pick the two from all candidates. If it's close and contested, top Administrative official - Mayor, Governor, President - decides, quickly.
By
R-Five, at 7:24 AM
I've written critical comments here before, especially about LL tax policy, but I think you are right on here LL about the caucus system. It is the biggest protection the passionate person has against big money. Paul Wellstone used the caucus system effectively. So did Barack Obama. So did Michele Bachmann. Very few people like every candidate on that list, but there's no question that this is a system that works to help the average person get involved at any level (for the most part) that they desire in the political process. That is a good thing. Leave it alone!
By
Anonymous, at 2:59 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home