Initiative is Drawing-out Opposition
Several Leaders in Utah are opposed to the “Count my Vote” initiative which would essentially do away with Utah’s long-standing caucus system.
Lynda Pipkin, the Republican Legislative District 7 Chair over the district which includes North Ogden and most of Pleasant View, refers to the Count My Vote Initiative as an "anti-grassroots initiative.” She says, “With our current caucus/convention system, we have a biennial neighborhood election where delegates from all over the state are elected. Delegates are charged with the duty of vetting ALL of their party's candidates. They are invited to several meet-the-candidate events and debates. They often spend hours and hours researching so they can vote on behalf of their precinct for the best candidate at the state convention. The winning candidates will either become the party nominee for the general election, or put on the primary ballot against another candidate from their party.”
However, to succeed, proponents have to get 102,000 signatures on their petitions to have their proposal put on the ballot. Utahns would then vote against, or for the democratic-minded proposal at the general election in November of 2014. According to the “Count My Vote” proponents’ website, this initiative, if passed, would do away with Utah’s long-standing caucus system. Initiative supporters claim that Utah’s caucus representative system is out-dated, and imply that people’s votes are somehow not currently counted.
Lowell Nelson, Utah State Coordinator for the Campaign for Liberty says, “The political establishment hates the caucus system, because they can’t manipulate it.” Lynda Pipkin says that the caucus-destroying proposal as proposed by the “Count my Vote” people, favors incumbents, favors candidates who have more money or money backing, and favors those candidates chosen by the media.
One of the themes put forward by the direct election people in this case is that people lose their vote when caucuses meet in their neighborhoods, and then elect others to represent them. Lynda Pipkin says that idea is absurd. In reality, those who participate most at their local level in neighborhood meetings—called caucuses—can, with sufficient time, deliberately choose between candidates and issues as informed voters. None are kept away. Those who participate less, still can vote in primary and general elections. Therefore, general voters are never disenfranchised under the caucus system, but those who are involved the most at the local level where neighbors meet and deliberately choose would be essentially prevented from exercising the candidate vetting and selection part of representative government at that basic and most essential level. That would lead to top-down electioneering rather than communication at the level of representative government.
The original Electoral College sought to prevent the tendency for special interests to dominate, and according to Constitutional scholars, Gary and Carolyn Alder, the caucus system contains many of the same elements. The Alders, along with Lynda Pipkin and Lowell Nelson, are among the leaders who oppose the initiative.
