The threshold is a two way sword

The threshold to avoid a primary is a two way sword. An 85/15 would make it easier for a weak challenger to get to a primary, but impossible to eliminate the incumbent without large amounts of money or fame. That was the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote request originally. Added to that the eliminating of any kind of multiple round and you could have 6 candidates in the primary, one of which would always be the incumbent.

They couldn't get 85/15, so they next tried 75/25. Almost impossible for an incumbent not to get 25% and make it to a primary. Yes, the incumbent is going to have a harder time getting 75%, but if the goal is more primaries that cost more money, it is one step closer to Buy My Vote or Buy My Ads. Add the elimination of the multiple round and you could get 3 or 4 candidates going to the primary. 70/30 allows up to 3 and again makes it harder to eliminate an incumbent.

Yes, the goal of 60/40 may have been to help the incumbents, but after Jason Chaffetz almost won in convention and Bennett and Gov. Walker lost, those that wanted to protect the incumbents realized they made a mistake with the 60/40 and many for years have wanted to switch it back. Two legislators were eliminated at convention this year. And yes, we still have some primaries, but not as many as we get with 2/3 or 70%.

In 2012 Utah, we have primaries: Hatch/Liljenquist, Dougall/Johnson, Swallow/Reyes, McCartney/Valdez, Okerlund/Painter, Vickers/Anderson, Perry/Galvez, Redd/Butterfield, Anderegg/Moore, Handy/Crowder, Macdonald/Bagley, Sagers/McCoy, Kennedy/Nitta, Muniz/Henrickson, Stratton/Murray, Christofferson/Kane, Greene/Stevens, Layton/Daw, Nelson/Wright, Westwood/Carling, and Crockett/Winder, to name a few. Not every race had a primary nor should it. Most of those were GOP primaries.

Yes a 2/3 would have made even more primaries, but the risk of an incumbent losing, or someone rich or famous losing would also go down.

Some that spoke for the 2/3 or 70% may believe what they have said, but I totally disagree and many in the SCC and also many of the delegates disagree as well. 

I have always said, The 60% threshold to avoid a primary works, allowing a shot of a challenger to eliminate an incumbent and yet requires a challenger to be a strong candidate. 

The current system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy or famous. I think that is a good thing.   Finely tuned balance. It won today.

Why vote down the take over compromise at the convention

For a period spanning 2 years, I had the best floor attendance record for floor votes in the entire Utah legislature. I wanted to hear what Rep. King, Rep. Powell, Rep. Bird, and Rep. Noel were going to say. Even though I had read the bills in advance, discussing them could cause me to change my mind or figure out a better way, solving the concerns of many.

That is being proposed to be removed from the caucus meeting. Dropping off our votes but not discussing. That is what is wrong with Washington DC. They don't listen to each other in a meeting. They watch from their offices. We need to change that not follow it.

I am not in favor of changing the 60% threshold and changing to 65% will not get the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote people to back off, they also want:

 "AND if the caucus event is opened up so everyone can participate even if they cannot attend at a specific place at a specific time" . 

I say go watch WALL-E from Pixar again, the people on the spaceship.

 I like the idea of improving the caucus meeting so everyone that was not at the meeting can find out who represents them and who to contact. We can make the meetings so someone can come for two hours and vote.

We are talking neighborhood town halls. We aren't just meeting to elect delegates. I believe the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote group would ruin that.

The current system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy or famous. Ie think that is a good thing.

 Keep Fair Elections in Utah.  

Keep Fair Elections in Utah

The Salt Lake Tribune has published an op-ed that I wrote. You can read it at:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/56205410-82/state-caucus-system-party.html.csp



The idea is so everyone that was not at the meeting can find out who represents them and who to contact.

We are talking neighborhood town halls. They aren't just meeting to elect delegates. I believe the Count My Vote group would ruin that.

No, I didn't pick the photo that they used. 

In support of Aaron Gabrielson for Utah State Republican Party Chair

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.

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:

http://fairelectionsutah.blogspot.com/2013/04/keep-it-at-60-percent.html

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]

Fair Elections Utah

My other blog on Fair Elections Utah vs the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote is at:
http://fairelectionsutah.blogspot.com/

Why I am OK with LDS Church being pleased with BSA Membership Standards Resolution

BSA isn't proposing on January 1, 2014 of allowing homosexual scouts. It is allowing scouts that stay morally clean with same-sex attraction, orientation, and/or belief to be scouts. There is a difference.

 There has been a lot of comments re: individuals pulling their sons from Scouting. I believe those statements show a lack of understanding of what the Church has said, and what BSA has said. I have linked and included those statements below with the following initial comments from me.

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and an Eagle Scout, and as someone that has been a scout leader, I am very supported of both organizations.

The Church allows someone with same-sex attraction, orientation, and/or belief to serve as an active member in callings of responsibility. It is only the persons actions that the Church teaches to be wrong that causes the Church, or BSA to take action limiting the status of the individual.

The Church said this about the proposed standard " a single standard of moral purity for youth in the program, and a renewed emphasis for Scouts to honor their duty to God".

Based on that, after Jan. 1, 2014, if you get a scout that has same-sex attraction, orientation, and/or belief, and the scout follows the " single standard of moral purity for youth in the program" he can participate. I don't have an issue with that.

From the BSA Member Standards Resolution:  "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"

Someone with same-sex attraction, orientation, and/or belief can already serve as Scout Leaders, providing they follow the Scout Oath and Law and are not open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.

From the BSA Member Standards Resolution:

"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"

"The 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."

The statements referenced are linked and are listed below for referenced:

See also:
http://www.mormonsandgays.org/

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

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

AND WHEREAS, duty to God, duty to country, duty to others, and duty to oneself are each a core value and immutable tenet of the Boy Scouts of America; and
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:

The 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.

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; and
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.