You didn’t mention to your 500 people that completed the survey that someone can already get signatures and be directly on the general election ballot, provided they file that way during the filing period. The only way someone currently can lose a party nomination and be voted on in the fall is by a write-in ballot. That worked in Alaska.

Neither Gov. Walker or Sen. Bennett, both of who were not even in the top 2 at convention, chose that route. Sen. Bennett endorsed the delegate favorite, Tim Bridgewater, who had 57% of the convention on the final vote. Tim lost in the primary, even with the endorsement of the other large delegate vote getters, Bob Bennett and Cherilyn Eagar. The voters were so ticked at Tarp and ObamaCare, they didn’t care.

You’ve written this same comment before. I don’t understand it, though. We’re not talking about running for party chair, precinct captain, or some other party office. We’re talking about having your name printed at taxpayer expense on a state-printed general election ballot.

You say: “If we have more primaries, we are apt to have more last minute attack pieces and more ethics problems.” You’re suggesting that elections are inherently bad, so we should take actions to reduce how many elections are contested? I’m pretty sure I’m not straw manning you here, but forgive me if I misunderstood. Assuming I understood your point correctly, though, I think I’ll side with Madison here (Federalist 52) that frequent, contested elections are actually a healthy thing for representation.

You say: “and is even an attempt to change the law bypassing the legislature.” That’s not a bad thing. Although the federal government is entirely representative, not direct, the Utah Constitution explicitly declares that the people of the state hold legislative authority. Article VI, Section 1, of the Utah Constitution: “The Legislative power of the State shall be vested in [the Legislature] and the people of the State of Utah [via direct democracy].”

It doesn’t mean things can’t be better, but this isn’t the way to do it.

We already have a large percentage of contested races go to primary. If we have more primaries, we are apt to have more last minute attack pieces and more ethics problems. There will also be a need for more political donations raised for the more expensive races. We don’t need to provide more power to the lobbyists.

Based on the party released sheets since 2000 for state wide races or congressional races, At a 60% threshold to avoid a primary, 47% of contested races went to primary. If at 2/3 threshold to avoid a primary, 67% of contested races went to primary and at 70% threshold to avoid a primary, 70% of the races went to primary. The last 2 numbers do not have to match, but they ended up doing so.

They tracked 44 races of 45 races, 14 of which were not contested for the nominee. I realize it is only 6 or 7 contested races difference, but when you are looking at 30 contested races, a change of 6 is 20%.

http://images.electionemail.com/client_id_10842/Convention_Election_History_page_1.pdf

http://images.electionemail.com/client_id_10842/Convention_Election_History_Page_2.pdf

The proposal from the “Count My Vote / Buy My Vote” crowd wasn’t just to raise the threshold to avoid a primary. It was to also remove multi-round voting or IRV and send all candidates that hit the lower range to the primary if someone didn’t hit the higher range on the only vote. With that proposal, why raise the range at all?

While his is proposing to gut the system, Mr. Webb has this to say:
“The current caucus/convention nominating process has many excellent qualities that we wish to retain. The system allows candidates who lack fame, wealth, and incumbency to compete for a party’s nomination. We also appreciate the valuable grassroots nature of the process, with neighbors gathering to discuss political issues and candidates. ”

We have a system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, wealthy or famous. This is a good thing. Lets keep it.

Fred Cox (R) and Janice Fisher (D) were drawn into the same district. Cox lost to Fisher in November.

Butterfield (R), Daw (R), Doughty (D), Hendrickson (D), Newbold (R), and Wright (R) failed to win renomination.

Watkins (D) lost to a general election challenger in November.

Wimmer (R), Sandstrom (R), and Herrod (R) left to run for Congress. Sumsion (R) ran for governor. Dougall (R) ran for state auditor. (Only Dougall was successful from this bunch.)

Frank (R), Vickers (R), Painter (R), and Harper (R) left the House to run for state Senate. Vickers and Harper were successful.

Litvack (D) and Kiser (R) chose to retire rather than run after being drawn into districts together with fellow incumbents from their own respective parties.

Morley (R) chose to retire from legislative service.