The caucus system is the best way to make sure grass roots movements 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.

There were about 60,000 republicans in Utah that went to the neighborhood caucus elections in 2010 to elect the 3500 delegates. Add to those numbers to democrats and the primary elections and certainly the municipal elections didn't do any better in voter representation.

In 2012 the number showing up again doubled. You look at primary turnout and you will see that few voters would decide.

Most people that want the caucus system changed, there are exceptions, are frustrated that they don't have as much power as people that show up to the neighborhood election caucus meetings. It doesn't take money, you just have to show up.

What we need are more people getting involved earlier, not shutting down the system that protects us from power hungry people wanting to take over.

re: Changing the system to allow a bypass of it:

If you are going to run as a democratic candidate, you have to comply with their rules. If you are going to run as a republican, you have to comply with their rules. If you want to run and not have those rules, you can run as an unaffiliated or independent. There are also 3rd party. This is an attempt to change the party rules by state law, bypassing the party and is even an attempt to change the law bypassing the legislature.

This will NOT create more participation. Between one of every 4 or 5 republicans attended their neighborhood election caucus meeting this last year. One is every three told a KSL poll they were involved or attending. There are 4000 state delegates that spend countless hours vetting candidates to be on the ballot. They are selected by those that attend the neighborhood election caucus meeting. You just have to come.

When people realize this will give them less of a chance to participate but give media and power brokers more power, they will not sign any initiative. It sounds good, but so did the unethical reform proposed as "ethical reform" which was a power grab by a few. That is what this is. It doesn't mean things can't be better, but this isn't the way to do it.