Subscribe
Best Of
Links
Categories
Archives
Search
I was surprised by the degree to which attendance felt like a statement of belief or even a commitment. It was a bit intimidating. As I approached the door someone (a friend, actually) challenged me and said, “Are you here because you are really a Republican or because you just wanted to come to our caucus?” Good question. I told him that if I belonged at either caucus it was more the Republican one. But on reflection, I don’t know. I would love to run for public office someday, but one of the things holding me back (besides not enjoying the appropriate type of extroversion in group settings) will be my inability to say, “As a lifelong Democrat . . .” or “As a lifelong Republican. . .” The truth is, the labels don’t fit that well. Also, I have been surprised by how much they vary from location to location. When I lived in Texas, I attended a Republican caucus and discovered that I was not a Republican. In California, I discovered that I was not a Democrat. Now in Utah . . . can’t I just be a person who thinks carefully about the issues and strives to be well-informed? Can’t I just be someone who thinks Bob Bennett has done a pretty good (not great) job and that seniority is an important issue? No–not if I want to have a voice.
One thing that bothered me in the caucus I attended tonight was that the precinct chair suggested that it would be unethical to run as a county or state delegate unless one accepted the county Republican platform in its entirety. [Is this true? I hope not. Please someone tell me chapter and verse of why it's not]. I am curious as to whether he made liars out of those candidates. Did all of them accept every point in the platform? I couldn’t have. Among other issues, I am not a fan of “consumer choice in education.” The platform seemed to be clearly pro-voucher [I didn't study the platform carefully though, it was read aloud to us] and while I believe that parents should be able to choose where they send their children, I believe the government has a proper interest in directing its limited resources towards public schools and education for citizenship. I suspect I wouldn’t be able to endorse every point in the Democratic platform either.
The turnout tonight was fabulous. Apparently people were riled up by healthcare and channeled their feelings into caucus attendance. Two years ago there were 25, tonight there were 75. One problem was that that meant there were a lot of newbies (including me–I can’t figure out where I was two years ago). For those of us rusty on Robert’s Rules of order, things started happening awfully fast. Before we knew it, the precinct chair and vice-chair had been chosen–running almost unopposed and having offered no explanation of their philosophy as delegates. That made sense because it had been explained that the chair and vice-chair were not automatically delegates. Then, after the vote it was discovered that the chairs automatically serve as delegates so suddenly rather than 5 county delegates to elect, we had only 3, and instead of 2 state delegates, we had only 1. That was a big disappointment.
I enjoyed hearing from the candidates for county delegate. I asked a lot of questions. I hope this was not too annoying to my neighbors, but as I saw that I did not have a future as a delegate, I thought a good use of my time was determining who would be a good delegate to vote for. Only 2 or 3 candidates out of 8 were informed about anything going on in the state legislature. When pressed on issues, 4 candidates mentioned that they were for stricter immigration controls. It was another moment that made me wonder whether I had caucused in the right place. Is there room in the big tent for me? I liked the part of the Republican platform that mentioned the word “humane” in connection with immigration reform.
I was disappointed in the run-up to the vote for state delegates. Someone made a motion to limit the candidate statements for state delegate to two minutes. [It was getting late!] It was promptly seconded and passed. Before I attend the next caucus, I am going to figure out how to delay a vote on a motion in order to have a discussion on it. It made no sense that we heard from our county delegate candidates at length and were able to ask them questions but only heard two minutes from our state delegate candidates. It was the hope of electing good state delegates that brought me to the caucus so this was a real disappointment. Next time, I think I would like to make a motion that state delegates be elected before county delegates. If we are going to run out of time for debate, let’s skimp on the county delegates, not the state delegates.
On Bob Bennett: of the seven candidates for state delegate, only one suggested that he would likely vote for Bennett. The others were committed to “new blood” to greater and lesser degrees. I assumed that this meant that the sole pro-Bennett candidate would survive to run in the run-off election we held, because the other six would split the anti-Bennett vote. However, he did not; he was defeated. If my precinct is representative (and I don’t know that it is) Bennett should be very, very concerned about his prospects at the May convention.
Added later: Here is a NYTimes article that describes Senator Bennett’s situation well. I fear getting a senator more conservative than Bennett. What would that mean?
Comments
7 Responses to “Inside a Utah Caucus”
Leave a Reply
I’m with you on so much of what you said. I talked with my husband about the caucus (he’s business traveling right now, so couldn’t attend), and he mentioned that there is a lot of “provincial” thinking in our precinct. I agree. For instance, only 44% of the people present were males (33 males/42 females), yet all 5 delegates voted in are male.
I also was concerned about the idea of embracing all of the platform, but a delegate really ought to be a voice representing the majority of the precinct. At least, I think so. If there are huge discrepancies between one’s own philosophy and the platform, then I can see why it may be in everyone’s best interest if that person not represent them. Case in point: we presently have a county delegate with prior experience who seems more interested in making his own opinions the basis for his delegate vote than the desires of his constituents. This isn’t sour grapes. I got the feeling that, should I wish to discuss my views and concerns with him, they would be dismissed if not in line with his. But he has experience, and that seemed to win the day tonight.
Tonight Robert’s Rules were more like inconvenient guidelines at times. Things were messy. And I agree that state delegates ought to be elected before county delegates. That seemed out of order. And hurrying the weightier matters of the meeting because we spent the first 30-40 minutes finding chairs and signing people in was disconcerting to me as well.
I also feel sometimes that there may just not be a place for me in the political landscape. I’m too conservative for some, and too liberal for others. And I strongly believe that when it comes to human politics, nobody is perfect, which means there must be something plausible on each side of the debate. Are we interested in finding the happy compromise, or just in winning the argument?
It’s awesome that you are there and involved. I found your description fascinating.
And I would argue that you don’t have to agree with every plank in the platform. It is unreasonable to assume such conformity.
I suspect that if you want to have any influence in Utah, it’s better to be in the Republican side. It’s a pretty lop-sided state. But I smiled at your comments about TX and CA.
This was such a good write up of your experience. I found out about the caucus last night about 5:30 and still ran over to the high school by 7 with two neighbors. I didn’t expect many people to be there, but it was insane. For our precincts last caucus there were 5 people. Last night there were 60. Thankfully ours only lasted 2 hours, but i was disappointed that no one asked questions.
I would agree with your previous commentator who said that you would not have to agree with every part of the platform. We got into the room when the platform was already being read, and I missed about half, but even what I was there for, I had some really serious concerns with. It’s one of the things that’s made it hard for me to identify with a party.
i think it would be really great to be a delegate one day. I would love it. But our precinct seemed to treat these elections like a popularity contest, very similar to our elementary school’s PTA elections (one reason I won’t be overly involved with PTA). In fact, when one neighborhood member heard me say how I thought it would be fascinating to be a delegate, she nominated me for treasurer (voted on before the delegates) so if I won that I wouldn’t be able to run against another ward member (in our Bishopric, who used part of the ward list to email and ask for votes earlier in the day). Typical politics? Sadly, I will see that little group of about 10 neighbors with different eyes now.
Also, on the male/female front: I was disappointed that we had so many women in attendance (I wish I counted men vs. women) and yet only elected women to the secretary and treasurer roles. Men got all the, dare I say…important jobs.
.-= Julir´s last blog ..where she waxes polititcal =-.
It’s funny how many similarities in view we have, while I would lean more towards the democrat side of the aisle. I thought about attending my own Caucus in West Jordan but I figure being an official democrat in Utah is about as frustrating as environmental law.
Maybe if I lived in Salt Lake proper.
According to my understanding of Robert’s Rules, after a motion is made and seconded there should be discussion before the motion is restated and then voted upon. I’ve been PTA parliamentarian a couple of times and that is the basic order.
I was a delegate to our county and state convention last general election and it never occurred to me or anyone else to require we uphold the whole platform. (TX democratic, FYI — not extremely comfy there, but suspect the other side wouldn’t be a great fit either). The local caucus, county and state convention scene was all jammed full of newbies. Things were disorganized, the rules were loosely applied, and things ran late. Really really late. And I was disheartened at the posturing and positioning that went on WITHIN the party.
Politics…
The previous commenter is totally right about the discussion after the motion is seconded… may have been a bit of railroading? It’s hard when there’s a lot of people though so it may have also been unintentional.
I tend to see my elected officials as “trusted servants.” We elected them to be our voice, but more so, I elected them to be truly informed and make the best choice at the time. Whether their decision falls into a specific party platform or not. In short, I want my elected official to do the right thing not the party thing.
I think that the problem with our two party system is that we don’t get a lot of wiggle room. As a Christian and a liberal, I definitely find myself pulled back and forth, but I TRY to elect people not issues. And I always try to be respectful of the other side. I think finding a common ground is how we find humanity in politics.
[Pmom] – thanks for pointing me to this post. I wish I’d been able to attend my caucus but I had to catch a flight. As I mentioned, I ran for a county delegate position in absentia and I was elected. I was hoping for a state delegate position but I think it would have been tough to win without being present. My good friend and neighbor took the state delegate slot we had available.
I think the process is fascinating. Delegates have a tremendous amount of power and responsibility and if you know how the system works it is relatively easy to get elected to a delegate position. The key is inviting your neighbors to come with you and knowing a little bit about Robert’s Rules. It’s also important to know up front how many positions are available so you can strategize. In Utah, the delegate slots vary depending on your precinct’s voter turnout and how many voted a straight party ticket. Also, in many caucuses the positions are filled prior to the caucus and the meeting becomes a formality.
I heard this year it was tougher to get a spot due to the turnout, but even in a group of 70 if you brought 10 friends you probably would have had a good shot at a spot. I know some of the commenters here have referred to the process as a popularity contest. I suspect it looks a lot like a popularity contest if you are a first-timer, but it really has more to do with preparation than popularity. I think the system favors preparation and strategy over qualifications at every level.