You are here: Home / Opinion / Republic v. Democracy and Utah’s Caucus System

Republic v. Democracy and Utah’s Caucus System

June 18, 2011 by 4 Comments

Originally submitted to (but not published by) the Salt Lake Tribune:

Ever since our state legislature passed H.B. 220 (a.k.a., the “republic v. democracy bill”), I have tried to relegate it to the rubbish bin of political silliness.  But it refuses to stay where I want to leave it, because H.B. 220 is a little bit more than political silliness.  It is a small (and generally harmless) symptom of what I see as a much more troubling problem: an attitude of contempt for the average citizen voter among Utah’s elected representatives and political power players.  We observed a startling example of this contempt in our legislature’s attempt to ram through H.B. 477 (a.k.a., the “GRAMA bill”) without public input and despite overwhelming public opposition.  The attitude is also rather glaringly reflected in Matthew Carling’s recent defense of the Utah caucus system, “The Utah Caucus System: Anathema of Apathy.”

To Mr. Carling, the caucus system is the grassroots embodiment of our republican government—it is the way we protect our political heritage from those well intentioned but less enlightened.  In theory, the caucus system:

  • Allows voters to choose the informed and committed persons who will represent them in selecting a party candidate for a statewide election.
  • Lowers the barrier that money and name recognition would pose for aspiring political candidates.
  • Prevents the candidate selection process from devolving into attack ads and sound bytes.
  • Results in the best slate of party candidates because delegates are able to meet with candidates and obtain a basis to make an informed decision.

But while the theory is straightforward, it is time to take a hard look at the realities of the caucus system in Utah.  In reality, the caucus system:

  • Compresses the candidate selection process for the average voter into a little more than two hours on a night when they may have other necessary commitments.
  • Often results in a slate of candidates that are out of step with the majority of party members.
  • Punishes incumbents who represent more than the fringe of their political party.
  • Opens doors to strident campaigners without large political war chests, but at the cost of closing political doors for nearly everyone else.
  • Results in the election of delegates who rarely seek to understand the viewpoints or opinions of their constituents, but are almost always already covert (or open) committed supporters of a particular candidate.
  • Gives unjustified power to delegates who are no more enlightened than the general electorate and just as susceptible to sound bytes and political demagoguery.
  • Allows a handful of delegates to determine the final results of statewide elections since there is no credible opposition threat in the general election.
  • Allocates so much political power to so few that it is susceptible to corruption.
  • Leaves candidates responsible to no more than a handful of strident political activists, thereby creating a breeding ground for comfortable contempt for average voters.

Far from being, as Mr. Carling suggests, the cure for voter apathy, Utah’s caucus system exacerbates the problem by creating a system in which almost all of Utah’s voters feel powerless to influence results.

It is true that we live in a republic.  But it is a democratic republic.  And absolute ideological disdain for democracy in all circumstances pushes republicanism over the line into guardianship, especially in a state so dominated by a single political party.  Abraham Lincoln, our country’s first Republican President, recognized that the American government was “by the people” and “of the people” as well as “for the people.”  Utah’s current caucus system is not, and we should be earnestly contemplating revisions or searching for alternatives.


IF YOU LIKED THIS, YOU MIGHT LIKE:

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: , , , , , ,
About Curt Bentley

is an attorney practicing commercial litigation, non-profit law, and intellectual property law in Utah at his firm Bentley Briggs & Lynch. In his spare time, he attempts to impersonate a jazz pianist, gardens, and dodges rattlesnakes and stirs up other trouble while running on Utah's amazing trails.

You can learn more or connect with Curt on Facebook, Twitter, or Google+.

Feel free to use or re-post content with proper attribution.

  • http://lawafterthebar.wordpress.com Daniel B

    “Compresses the candidate selection process for the average voter into a little more than two hours on a night when they may have other necessary commitments.” Such as American Idol, or I forgot? Once every two years and you can’t plan for it?

    “Often results in a slate of candidates that are out of step with the majority of party members.” This is given with no evidence, and I think it’s open for debate.

    “Punishes incumbents who represent more than the fringe of their political party.” This happens with an at-large primary, as well.

    “Results in the election of delegates who rarely seek to understand the viewpoints or opinions of their constituents, but are almost always already covert (or open) committed supporters of a particular candidate.” Proof? Sounds like someone didn’t get the majority in their precinct election and couldn’t talk the delegate into listening to them…

    “Gives unjustified power to delegates who are no more enlightened than the general electorate and just as susceptible to sound bytes and political demagoguery.” What’s “unjustified” about it? And how do you know that they are less enlightened? Again, you sound like you are ranting, not reasoning.

    “Allows a handful of delegates to determine the final results of statewide elections since there is no credible opposition threat in the general election.” Are you saying that the Democrats cannot put up credible opposition? If that’s the case, what’s your concern?

    “Leaves candidates responsible to no more than a handful of strident political activists, thereby creating a breeding ground for comfortable contempt for average voters.” …So your alternative is a wide open primary that is won by the person with the most money?

    Yeah. That’s what political science has shown us. The guy with the most money wins. Almost always.

    Sounds like you’re ok with switching one form of manipulation–that by a large group of people who organize and show up–for another–that by a likely very small group of well financed individuals or individual.

    So, rather than forcing a candidate to get THOUSANDS of people to show up in thousands of precincts, as well as contact THOUSANDS of MORE people in those precincts to ask for their vote at the meeting, you want to have just one person who can fork out millions of dollars for advertising (read: thirty second sound bite campaign) and never actually have to go and get to know their constituents?

       0 likes

    • http://www.utahpoliticalsummary.com cbentley

      Thanks for the response – I miss the days when we used to agree on some things :)

      Well, rather than American Idol, I was thinking more like babysitting or other children/work related committments. It happens. Not everyone misses caucus night for American Idol. And frankly, I was more concerned with the two hours part of it . . . .

      While everyone moves to the right (or left, as the case may be) during the primary, the level of punishment is nowhere near as severe in a primary election than in a caucus-convention system. With the caucus system, we really are talking appealing to a fringe. In a primary, we’re talking base.

      We’ll I’ll admit that I wasn’t elected a delegate, but I think my point is a valid one anyway :)

      Power given to delegates is unjustified to the extent we attempt to justify it on the ground that they are somehow more committed, informed, and intelligent than the average primary voter would be. From what I’ve seen, that’s not the case at all. Of course, this is ultimately, of necessity, a judgment call based on personal opinion.

      My concern is that I think the deficiencies of the caucus system are particularly significant in a dominant party state.

      Money’s a valid concern. You’re right that neither is a perfect solution. But yes, overall, I would prefer a direct primary to the caucus system.

      The only other thing I would write in response to your final paragraph, it that, under our current system, the candidates never have to go out and meet their constituents. They only have to meet the delegates. Delegates != constituents. There was more than one time this last Saturday, where a candidate or representative started to talk with me about an issue, only to end the conversation quite abruptly as soon as they discovered I wasn’t a delegate.

      Maybe next time, I’ll be one of the lucky ones. But if the people in my precinct happen to read my blog, I doubt it :)

         0 likes

  • http://www.facebook.com/DaveGarber1975 David Edward Garber

    Curt, these “out-of-step fringe elements” (also known as “right-wing extremists”) that you deride above are Republicans who actually believe in their own party’s platform. Is that truly so radical? America’s Establishment apparently doesn’t like how these grassroots “platform conservatives” have recaptured Utah’s GOP since 2008 and, as such, have been nominating like-minded candidates such as Chaffetz over Cannon and Lee over Bennett—candidates who actually vote roughly according to the Utah GOP’s platform, unlike their predecessors. It seems to me that the Establishment has become desperate to regain their top-down dominance over Utah’s GOP, including by trying to throw out the entire system for one that they can dominate more easily.

    As for myself, I think that Utah’s present hybrid caucus/primary system is great—it’s not perfect, but it’s significantly better than most. It allows grassroots Republicans to choose passionate motivated well-informed “experts” from amongst themselves, who then carefully scrutinize all candidates, vote in multiple rounds to narrow choices to two to appear on a primary election ballot, and lets these final two candidates skip a primary election if one candidate has overwhelming delegate support. This indeed reduces the influence of both money and biased journalism in nominations, since “little guys” have a FAR better ability to attract serious attention, and it also reduces the influence of biased “mainstream” news, since participants in this caucus process rely more on direct interaction with candidates than on minimal tidbits of information filtered through biased journalists. It also ensures that no candidates will ever get nominated unless they can get a majority of Republican voters to support them. Pure primary elections remove all of these advantages and provide no genuine significant ones in return, unless we accept a distorted view of reality, as does the list provided above.

    I apologize if these remarks are overly harsh, Curt, but this is a war for the heart-and-soul of Utah’s GOP, and I’ve been standing on the front lines of this war for a few years now, so it’s easier for me than most to see where those battle lines are drawn. America’s Establishment was alright with this decades-old hybrid system when it kept renominating Cannon and Bennett and such year after year, but now that it’s nominating Chaffetz and Lee, instead, they hate it. This is the ONLY reason why this longstanding system is suddenly under attack—there is no other. These modern political collectivists demand a new system that they, with their wealth and media dominance, can more easily dominate to their advantage. Let’s please not give it to them.

       0 likes

    • http://www.utahpoliticalsummary.com/about/ Curt Bentley

      David, no worries, I view your comments as passionate, not harsh. Besides, I have too much respect for your opinion and commitment to be offended by you taking the time to comment on my blog. :) We just have a difference of opinion on this one. I hope you’ll allow me some passionate comments as well. Get ready for a loooong response…

      There are things I like about the caucus system. But there are many more I don’t like, especially as it’s currently constituted. Yes, it gives little guys a chance to run and be elected, and, yes, means that lack of money and name recognition are not insurmountable barriers for potential candidates. Those are all good things.

      But at what cost? It may be harsh (there’s that word again) to say it, but in Utah, representatives don’t, by and large, care what their constituents think. They care what 3,500 Republican Party delegates think. Hey, I’m not a delegate, and I can’t get a single one of them to talk to me or return my emails. Now, I know they are busy people, and I’m nobody, but even when I try and talk to them at conventions or other meetings, they brush me off as soon as they learn I’m not a delegate. And why not? They know that I don’t matter. With limited time, they’ve got to connect with their delegates in order to survive.

      As a practical matter, I’m not one of their constituents. I suppose this is just an annoyance when delegates represent the views of most of their party members, but when they don’t, it’s a problem, because a whole perspective is ignored and unheeded. And the problem is compounded when delegates are deciding the results (or, in cases of primaries, the substantial course) of general elections themselves. There are, undoubtedly, advantages to Utah’s caucus system, but they come at the expense of marginalizing the average voter, especially in a dominant party state. (And don’t even get me started on the fact that many people now want to have election of U.S. Senators done by state legislatures, who are elected by delegates . . . how far are we going to take this idea?)

      And what’s our response to all this? We tell people to show up to your neighborhood caucus meeting, if you can. If you have an irreconcilable conflict, try again in two years. I mean surely everyone can get one day off per year right? Democrats staff stores, run hospitals, provider protection and first responder services on Republican caucus night, and vice versa. Then, we say to people who can make it: “When you get there, you can listen to a three or four of your neighbors give 1 minute speeches, and, on that basis, you can elect them to do a significant amount of your meaningful voting for the next 2 years. And your delegate ‘representative’ will never bother to consult you, because they are independently ‘engaged’ and ‘civic-minded’ and ‘more enlightened.’ Better that they converse with the candidates, your potential representatives, rather than you sort through biased news and political advertising. They’ll make your decisions for you. Maybe there will be a primary and you’ll have a chance to vote for the direction you want your party to go. Or maybe not. But it doesn’t matter because you have a “representative,” albeit one who doesn’t care a lick what you think and about whom you have no information–including no information on who/what they vote to support. We’re compounding representative upon representative to the point that for most people, their meaningful political participation for many races in Utah is limited to municipal elections and the biannual precinct caucus.

      You say that the caucus system ensure that “no candidates will ever get nominated unless they can get a majority of Republican voters to support them.” This is incorrect. They will be nominated if a majority of Republican delegates support them, no matter how the majority of Republicans feel. In fact, under the current system it is more than theoretically possible that they will not be nominated despite the fact that they a have majority (or the largest plurality) or Republican voter support. Ask Olene Walker about this. It’s is the main defect of the caucus system: delegates become the constituency.

      This is the practical reality, at least as I see it. And it’s problematic.

      You’re right in suggesting that the most recent talk of reform was brought on by dissatisfaction with the rightward turn of the Republican Party. But there are good grounds for the reform nonetheless. Did you know that for a few years Utah had a direct primary system, and returned to a caucus-convention system so a governor could be assured of reelection? There’s some interesting information in this video:

      http://media.kued.org/mediaPlayer.php?filePath=media/hinckleyInstitute/video/UtahsDelegates.mov&title=Do+Utah%27s+Delegates+Represent+Utah%27s+Voters%3F%2C+Hinckley+Institute+Forum+%5BVideo%5D+%2804%2F27%2F2010%29&vWidth=640&vHeight=376&mk=video&captions=/media/hinckleyInstitute/xml_cc/UtahsDelegates.xml&showEmbedCode=yes

      Both systems get manipulated, and people get mad and attack systems that don’t work to their advantage.

      This is more than a battle for the soul of the GOP, it’s about meaningful representation and goes to the core of our democratic values.

         0 likes