Why Rush to Make Fundamental Changes in Utah’s Political System?

Utah consistently leads the nation in volunteerism and charitable giving by wide margins[1]. Forbes named Utah the best state for business in 2012—for the third consecutive year [2] —and the best state for debt management in 2009 [3]; The The Pew Center’s 2008 report on state performance rated Utah the best‑managed state in the country [4]. And in January 2011, the Milken Institute ranked Utah first in the nation for technology and economic dynamism [5].

With accolades like these, one might expect critics to study what Utah is doing right. Instead, a group calling itself the “Count My Vote Executive Committee” (CMV) is pressuring Utah’s political parties to overhaul their nominating processes. They have threatened to run a statewide petition to force changes into law if the parties do not adopt their preferred reforms.(click here to see their latest memo to the parties).

Can systems and processes be improved? Of course. But is there evidence that something is fundamentally broken in Utah’s political system—especially when the state is performing so well in so many areas? CMV argues that the caucus/convention system is driving down voter participation. Is that claim supported by data?

At last year’s caucuses, a record number of Utahns attended their neighborhood meetings. In my own precinct, attendance more than doubled compared to any previous caucus. That hardly suggests a system in decline. And in presidential elections, turnout among eligible Utah voters increased from 52.1% in 1996 to 56.0% in 2012—a 7.7% rise [6].

CMV also points out that Utah’s nominating process is unique. But should uniqueness be a problem? If the goal is to become more like states that struggle with debt, business climate, or governance—such as California—then perhaps we should change. But Utahns generally appreciate being national leaders. Why should we fear being unique in how we nominate party candidates?

There is also a broader question: should the state dictate how private organizations select their leaders and representatives? Would we support a law telling the Catholic Church how to choose bishops because a group of professors or former clergy believed they had a better method? Would we run a petition to force the LDS Church to change how it selects local leaders because some felt the process wasn’t inclusive enough? Of course not. These are private organizations. If someone wants to influence their internal processes, the appropriate path is to work within the organization—not impose state control.

Are CMV’s ideas worth discussing? Yes. In fact, on April 13, 2013, the Republican State Central Committee unanimously passed a resolution to “research, discuss, and consider improvements to the Republican Caucus/Convention System,” including potential updates to the Caucus Handbook.

But there is no crisis requiring immediate, sweeping reform. Both major parties will continue to refine their systems, but they will do so deliberately and thoughtfully—not under pressure from a small outside group. Utah will continue to thrive because its residents care enough to participate and because its political system allows ordinary citizens to make a meaningful difference.

Topics Worth Exploring Further

The Value of Primaries

Beyond cost, do primaries better prepare candidates for general elections? Do they produce better elected officials? These questions deserve careful study.

Voter Turnout

Utah’s turnout in 2012 was 56%, slightly below the national average of 58.7%. Hawaii was lowest at 44.5%, and Minnesota highest at 76.1%. Should our goal be higher turnout—or more informed voters? Would we prefer 50% turnout among well‑informed voters or 65% turnout among less‑informed voters? Is there a way to measure voter knowledge across states? If Utah voters are more informed, lower turnout may not be a negative.

Historical Patterns

When the convention threshold was 70% or 80%, how often did races advance to primaries compared to today’s 60% threshold? How did incumbents fare under each system? The Republican Party analyzed how recent races would have turned out under higher thresholds, but that analysis doesn’t account for how campaigns behave when aiming for different targets. Reviewing data from the periods when those thresholds were actually in place would provide better insight.

Why CMV’s Approach Is Risky

Some advocate a “fail fast, fail often” approach to improvement. But CMV’s proposal would lock their ideas into state law. That means we might fail fast—but we could not fail often. Fixing unintended consequences would be slow and costly. It is far better for parties to adjust their own bylaws or caucus rules, which can be revised quickly as needed.

Consider this: 93% of successful companies had to abandon their original strategy to succeed [7]. Does CMV believe its proposal is more foolproof than the strategies of leaders and investors in 93% of successful companies? Should we enshrine their ideas in law, where they become difficult—if not impossible—to change?

Statistician George Box famously said, “The only way to know how a complex system will behave after you modify it is to modify it and see how it behaves” [8]. Utah’s caucus/convention system is certainly complex. We should make informed adjustments—but we must also be able to reverse course if needed.

Sources:
[1] The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Aug 19, 2012
[2] “Utah Tops Forbes 2012 List Of The Best States For Business”, Forbes, Dec 12, 2012
[3] “Utah Recognized As Best In The Nation For Debt Management”, The Utah Governor’s Office of Economic Development, Feb 11, 2010
[4] “Grading the States”, The Pew Center, 2008
[5] “State Technology and Science Index 2010”, The Milken Institute, Jan 2011
[6] United States Election Project
[7] Clayton M. Christensen, How Will You Measure Your Life, 2012
[8] Clayton M. Christensen, Jeff Dyer, & Hall Gregersen, The Innovators DNA, 2011