Reform Utah Politics?

Over the last 18 months, I’ve noticed a growing number of newspaper articles arguing that Utah’s caucus system is flawed and must be reformed to prevent various supposed problems. I read another such piece Saturday morning in the Deseret News editorial section.

Before addressing the claims made in that article, it’s worth briefly reviewing how Utah’s caucus system actually works.

Utah is divided into roughly 2,200 precincts. In March of each election year, each political party holds precinct meetings where precinct officers (chair, vice-chair, secretary, and treasurer) and county and state delegates are elected to two‑year terms.

County and state delegates then attend nominating conventions, where they vote to select the party’s candidates. If no candidate receives at least 60% of the vote, the top two advance to a primary election.

Between the precinct meetings and the convention—about two months—delegates are actively courted by candidates. They receive calls, attend small meetings, and get plenty of mail, both physical and electronic. Delegates have numerous opportunities to interact with candidates, often in small groups or one‑on‑one, and they invest many hours becoming informed.

Because the number of delegates is relatively small (about 3,500 statewide), the cost for candidates to reach them is far lower than the cost of running a full primary campaign. This broadens the field of viable candidates.

With that background, let’s examine the assertions made in Saturday’s editorial, “Reform Utah Politics.” The article claims that the caucus system:

• Discourages participation
• May contribute to lower voter turnout
• It’s hard to qualify for a primary
• Is vulnerable to manipulation
• Caucus meetings are loosely controlled
• Empowers extremists
• Is easily manipulated to exclude people

Quite frankly, like other pieces I’ve read, the editorial relies heavily on innuendo and lightly on facts. Words like “may” are used to provide cover for unsubstantiated claims. Let’s address each point.

It discourages participation.

Caucus meetings give voters the chance to gather in small neighborhood groups and elect people they trust to thoroughly evaluate candidates. That is representative democracy in action. Candidates don’t need to spend huge sums of money; their biggest investment is time. I see no basis for the claim that this discourages participation.

It may contribute to lower voter turnout.

Utah participation in presidential elections has declined in 8 out of the last 11 times, starting in 1964. Turnout dropped from 78.5% of voting age population to 50.5%. Nationally Nationally, turnout declined from 61.9% to 56.8% over the same period.

So why blame the caucus system—a system that coincided with 78% turnout in 1964? That’s a good question. I don’t have an answer.

A more reasonable approach would be to examine broader cultural trends—church attendance, charitable giving, civic engagement—and look for correlations.

It’s hard to qualify for a primary

Is the goal simply to have more primaries? Is it bad if we don’t?

The caucus/convention system actually makes it easier for candidates to enter a race. It’s less expensive, and candidates can share their full story with delegates who take the time to become informed. If delegates select a nominee by a 60% supermajority, that is arguably a more informed decision than a low‑turnout primary. For context: since 1998, the highest primary turnout in Utah County among registered voters is just 18%.

Caucuses are vulnerable to manipulation

We’re supposed to believe that it’s easy to manipulate the outcomes of roughly 2,200 meetings, all held on the same night, run by volunteers chosen by their neighbors? If manipulation were so easy, how did Senator Bennett lose his nomination despite spending around $2 million—more than any other candidate in the process? Enough said.

Caucus meetings are loosely controlled

Caucus meetings follow party rules and, in my experience, are well managed. Are there exceptions? Of course—everyone involved is a volunteer. But what’s the alternative? Paid professionals? That would create far more opportunity for centralized manipulation. Or should we eliminate the system entirely? One wonders if that’s the real objective.

The system empowers extremists

The editorial cites two statistics: women make up 55% of Republican voters but only 25% of delegates, and 81% of delegates have lived in Utah for 20 years. How do these numbers prove extremist influence?

Could fewer women attend caucus meetings for reasons unrelated to ideology? Possibly. Could longer‑term residents be elected because they’re more informed about local issues? Also possible. The statistics don’t demonstrate extremism.

The numbers come from a Dan Jones/Deseret News/Hinckley Institute poll. For context, Dan Jones’ Oct. 18, 2010 poll showed Matheson leading Philpot 57% to 31%; the actual result was 51% to 46%. They also had Bridgewater leading Mike Lee 42% to 33%; the actual result was Lee 51%, Bridgewater 49%. Not that it necessarily matters—but it does raise questions about the reliability of the data.

The bottom line: the system favors those who are interested and willing to participate. Meetings are open to all. I was elected precinct chair the first time I ran, and I had only lived here seven years.

It is easily manipulated to exclude people

I don’t see how a system that invites participation and allows neighbors to elect their own representatives is exclusionary. Nor do I see how reducing the cost of running for office narrows the field of candidates. If anything, it reduces the influence of money and media sound‑bites. Perhaps that’s the real concern.

Final Thoughts

Utah has been recognized by the Pew Center as the best‑managed state in the nation, yet the Deseret News claims our political system is deeply flawed. Why change something that is working well? Do we really want to move toward a system more like California’s?

Reforming the caucus system would benefit incumbents, wealthy candidates, and those who prefer influencing voters through mass media rather than substance. I value the current system because it empowers citizens to push back against entrenched power and big money. I hope we have the courage to preserve it.