Utah's Neighborhood Elections

There's been a lot of talk recently about scrapping Utah's caucus delegates in favor of a straight primary. Well, I think it's just talk, anyone with any political importance in Utah backs the current system, mostly because it works and, in Utah, we don't mess around with what works! (At least, not that often.) So, how do Utah elections work?

Elections are held every two years in 2,148 neighborhood caucuses for precinct delegates. These delegates represent their neighbors at county and state party conventions.

At convention, delegates vote for candidates for county, state and federal offices. (By law, municipal elections are non-partisan.) Up to three rounds of voting take place. In the first round, every candidate is on the ballot. The top three candidates proceed to the second round. The top two candidates to a final, third round. If, in any round, a candidate gets 60% of the vote, the race is over and that candidate becomes the party's nominee. If not, it goes to a closed primary election – meaning only party members vote in their respective party primaries.

It looks complex at first glance, but read it through a couple of times, it really is very simple, and it really is an intelligent, wise system. Allow me to point out a few of the advantages of Utah's neighborhood election system:

1) Delegates show up.

Ever heard the old proverb, "90% of winning is showing up"? Delegates participate in precinct caucuses, they attend county or state conventions (sometimes both) and they show up at meet the candidate events (among others). Before I was 40, I voted, but never had any other political activity. Since then, I have gotten more and more involved, and better acquainted with other political actives. When I go to my precinct caucus next spring, I'll tell my neighbors to re-elect me as their delegate because I've spent the last decade getting to know the players and I am the most qualified person to make that choice.

2) Delegates get the access they need to make good decisions.

That may sound a little screwy, but it's true: In the 2010 Senate race, we had 1 incumbent, 3 serious challengers and 4 stooges who provided comic relief. (I'm not being rude; one candidate flyer actually said he was proud to be running to be "Utah's senior senator" – clearly, this clown didn't know what he was doing.)

Think about this: About 3,500 state delegates represent over 1,500,000 registered voters. What are the chances that any candidate can get his/her message out to those registered voters? If you are the incumbent, the odds are about 100% – every media outlet in the state wants to hear from you and is "obligated" (to a point) to report your activities. If you are the challenger, it would cost a real fortune to match that free advertising. If, however, you can target just the state delegates, you, the challenger, have a chance to make your case to those who'll make the decision. Lots of people in this country talk about "the incumbent party" or "the establishment" or whatever you want to call it. Everybody knows the incumbent has huge advantages. The delegate system can’t eliminate those advantages, but it cuts them down to size a bit.

3) Majority over plurality.

Again, because it is a good example (one I hope to see more of in the future), the 2010 senate race is instructive. Suppose Utah had a primary system, what would that primary have been like? It would've had 8 contenders on one ballot. What are the chances that the primary winner – the Republican Party nominee – actually had the support of a majority of Republicans? Zero. None. Zip. Bupkis. Zilch. No way. No how. Ain't gonna' happen!

Having 8 contenders means that each contender gets an average of 12.5% of the votes cast. That means the winner could take the race with as little as 13% of the vote. More likely twice that, at the very least – a winner with 26% in an 8-way race is not at all impossible. Not impossible, but very scary, especially when you consider the average turnout for primaries. One report is estimating a 10% turnout (national average) in the 2010 primaries. Do the math: 26% of 10% is 2.6 percent or around 1 person in 40.

Okay, that's a worst case scenario, but that phrase exists because some very smart person decided that we should create a plan to prevent the worst case scenario. The delegate system is that plan. Granted, out of 3,500 delegates, the winning majority of just over 1,750 represents a bit under 1/10th of 1% of all Utah voters.

You could say that the delegates choose the party nominee.

I think it's more correct to say that county and state delegates weed out the bush-league wannabees that have no business being in the race so that, when the public gets to the primary, they can choose among fully-qualified, fully-vetted, capable candidates.

4) Delegates can't be bought.

To those who think they can be: Take a reality pill!

During my second term as a county delegate, my state representative seat had 4 Republican hopefuls. I met all of them.

Hopeful #1 came to my house for a 30-minute private chat – that impressed me. We discussed several issues – his answers did not impress me. Hopeful #2 had an open house at which I and other delegates spent about three hours discussing issues – his answers impressed me.

Hopefuls #3 and #4 bought me dinner – that impressed me and fed me well for two nights! Hopeful #3 didn’t give me the feeling that he really grasped the issues. Hopeful #4 had answers to my questions I felt were well-researched and in line with what I would do. That really impressed me and #4 got my vote in Convention.

My point: A steak dinner and tall glass of lemonade (worth, maybe $20-$25) didn't get my vote. No one who cares enough to take the trouble to be a delegate could be bought for $25! That is flat out insulting. There is no personal profit in becoming a delegate. In fact, it's sometimes a pain. (During the 6 weeks between caucuses and convention in 2010, I got more junk mail from the senate candidates than I usually get in a year!) We do it because we care.

5) While we're thinking about it...

My first Minuteman Redux post was some advise on Republican Primaries. I don't think we need to repeat it all here, but it is worth mentioning, for those who want more talking points.

The bottom line.

I'm currently serving my third term as a county delegate and my first as a state delegate. I've met hundreds of great people who spent time, effort and money (some of them spend lots of money) to attend the conventions and do the due diligence they need to do to make good decisions. They get very little in return. Delegates care; they care about Utah and they care about you, their neighbors.

And, by the way, if you are wondering about that much-referenced 2010 senate race – I voted for Cherilyn Eagar in round 1 and Tim Bridegewater in rounds 2 & 3 and the primary. As you recall, Mike Lee won that primary and the election. You might also recall that Mr. Lee and Utah got a lot of media attention for ousted a sitting, 3-term incumbent from the United States Senate.

Utah's neighborhood elections made that possible.

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

The Truth About the United Nations

A couple of years ago, I had a blog on a website run by Morgan Philpot. Mostly, I just quoted headlines from the news about the dumb things liberals do, and made snide comments about their lack of intelligence. Easy and fun! As the "Minuteman Redux," I have tried to offer more in-depth analysis.

Well, this week, I'm going back to my former format, not because I'm getting lazy, but because no analysis is needed. The United Nations is a bad joke played on us by Pres. Franklin Roosevelt and his liberal cronies, and you need to know the punchline of that joke. I'll give you about a thousand words to guess:

Obama: UN 'Legitimated' US Action in Libya

Matt Cover of CNSNews.com is covering this week's latest UN-based travesty, courtesy of another travesty, Pres. Barak Hussein Obama:

In a 30-page report justifying continued military involvement in the NATO-led strikes in Libya, the Obama administration claims that US military involvement is "legitimated" by the UN Security Council – saying that therefore no congressional authorization is needed.

"US forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition, whose operations are both legitimated by and limited to the terms of a United Nations Security Council Resolution that authorizes the use of force solely to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo," the report said.

Okay, all of you know by know that I am an amateur constitutional scholar. I say that because, unlike 90% of Americans, I've actually read the Constitution. It's something you and I probably have in common. Last time you read that august instrument, did you see anything about the United Nations authorizing US military action? No? Neither did I.

We Must Pay Our UN Bills, Obama Administration Insists

Also last week, Patrick Goodenough of CNSNews.com wrote:

Amid continuing calls to reduce US funding of the United Nations, two senior Obama administration officials this week gave speeches asserting the importance of full – and fully-paid up – engagement with the world body. US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice addressed the United Nations Association of the United States (UNA-USA) on Monday, urging the advocacy group to help the administration make the case to the American people that "the UN plays an indispensable role in advancing our interests and defending our values."

Giving more money (that the US doesn't have) to the UN is like tipping a waiter who screws up your order. It's like buying another ticket to a comedy that wasn't funny. It's like buying a house you know had been used as a meth-lab. It's like being a white guy walking the streets of Harlem or Watts at 2:00 AM wearing a $2,000 suit.

United Nations report: Internet access is a human right

Earlier this month, Nathan Olivarez-Giles of the Los Angeles Times, wrote:

Internet access is a human right, according to a United Nations report released on Friday.

"Given that the Internet has become an indispensable tool for realizing a range of human rights, combating inequality, and accelerating development and human progress, ensuring universal access to the Internet should be a priority for all states," said the report from Frank La Rue, a special rapporteur to the United Nations, who wrote the document "on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression."

The only question that comes to mind when reading this is, "So, what do they think is not a human right?" The only answer that comes to mind is, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

US Backs UN Business Guidelines, Steps to Safeguard Workers

Just last week, Bill Varner of Bloomberg wrote:

The Obama administration today backed steps by United Nations human rights and labor bodies to protect as many as 100 million domestic workers and prevent human rights abuses by transnational corporations.

The US joined 46 other nations on the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in endorsing the first global standards detailing government duties to regulate business activities and corporate responsibilities to respect human rights. The council created a working group to monitor implementation of the voluntary guidelines and asked Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to report on how the UN and related agencies can assist.

Let's see, is this the same UN Human Rights Council that Syria is joining? Why yes, it is. Is this the same UN Human Rights Council that includes China (which holds a Nobel Peace Prize winner in perpetual custody); Cuba (which never even pretended to know the meaning of the words 'human rights'); Nigeria, Russia & Libya (all cited in a US State Dep't report describing "the human rights situation and key trends in specific countries where abuses were especially serious"). Why, yes, it is.

UNFPA Pushes Reproductive Rights in United Nations Treaties to Promote Abortion

About a year ago, Samantha Singson of LifeNews.com, wrote:

This week, abortion advocates the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) and Amnesty International (AI) are teaming up with the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) to host the "first-ever" briefings on "reproductive rights" for the committees responsible for monitoring compliance with the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

According to the CRR website, the briefing with the UN Committee against Torture (CAT) will focus on "reproductive rights violations" such "denial of reproductive healthcare services, including abortion and post-abortion care." . . .

UN observers have watched compliance committees, especially the body that monitors the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), overstep their mandates in over 100 different instances over the years to misinterpret treaty provisions and pressure countries to decriminalize or liberalize access to abortion. 

First, they demand it as a right for themselves; then they demand it as a right for everybody; then they just demand it. Fair warning – take a look at what Al Gore is up to these days.

UN Declares War on Property Rights - Most of the USA would be Off Limits to Americans

Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus and Tom DeWeese, President of the American Policy Center, discuss and show a map of detailing how most of the US would be declared off limits to all people by the UN in the name of safeguarding biodiversity. Most of the USA would be totally off limits, some areas would be allowed 'limited' human use, and only tiny areas allowed normal use by Americans.  You can also see the map at Land And Water USA.

Are the bureaucrats at the UN stupid enough to think the American people will sit still for this? Well, after 6 decades of sitting still for the Roosevelt-Johnson-Carter-Clinton-Obama creeping socialism, it is a possibility not so remote as we might imagine.

The punchline:

So, if the UN is a joke, what gets the laugh? We do. The "powers that be" -- the liberal elitists, the Marxists, the "former" communists -- all the people who've been trying to take away your liberties, are laughing at us! We let this happen.

Fortunately, they screwed up, like the Japanese when they attacked Pearl Harbor -- "All [they] have done is awaken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve." (Adm. Isoruku Yamato).

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

The Balanced Budget Amendment

Once again, a balanced budget amendment has come forward. By one count, there have been a dozen and a half such proposals over the past half-century or so. All of them have failed – in 1997, it failed by one vote in the Senate. Will this latest proposal go that way? I hope so – not because I disagree with the concept, I wholeheartedly support the concept. In fact, Utah's state constitution requires a balanced budget, and that is one of the reasons Utah is called "the best managed state in the Union," by no less than the Pew Center's Government Performance Project.

My problem is with the details of the legislation.

Let me summarize the proposal:

1) Federal outlay cannot exceed income, unless 67% of Congress agrees.
2) Federal outlay cannot exceed 18% of GNP, unless 67% of Congress agrees.
3) The President must submit a balanced budget, as defined in 1 & 2.
4) Tax increases require a 67% vote of Congress.
5) The debt limit cannot be increased, unless 60% of Congress agrees.
6) Congress may waive these restrictions in times of war – as declared by Congress.
7) Congress may waive these restrictions in times of " imminent and serious military threat to national security" – as declared by 60% of Congress.
8) No federal or state court can order an increase in revenue to balance the budget.
9) Total income cannot include borrowed funds.
10) [The standard enforcement clause.]
11) [The standard "take effect" clause.]

It sounds so good, why should anyone object?

It does sound good, and, again, I agree that America desperately needs to balance the federal budget. Deep down, however, I'm not convinced a balanced budget amendment will actually balance the budget. The only real guarantee America has for fiscal responsibility is to send fiscally-responsible adults to Washington. As President James Madison once wrote:

I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there new virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks – no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness, without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea [a fantasy]. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who choose them.

[Speech in the Virginia Ratification Convention, 20 June 1788, emphasis added.]

That's the solution to the problem. Until we reach that solution, I agree that we need to treat the symptoms of the problem. This isn't the right treatment; I have two fundamental objections to this proposal. The first deals with the exceptions, the second deals with ratification:

First, a greater majority is not enough.

Since definitions are important here, I will use these:

A "simple majority" is one-half plus 1

51 votes in the US Senate, 218 votes in the US House.

A "greater majority" is two-thirds

67 votes in the US Senate, 290 votes in the US House.

A "super majority" is three-quarters

75 votes in the US Senate, 327 votes in the US House.

(In general terms, any vote over 50% is called a "super majority" but, since the US Constitution has provisions for 50%, 67% and 75% votes, I will draw distinctions among the three.)

I'm absolutely cool with an exception for declared war, but for other exceptions, I don't think that a greater majority is enough, I don't think it is constitutionally moral. (Yes, "constitutionally moral" is a new concept; keep reading, I will explain it.)

We have all heard of congressional leaders and party officials and special interest groups begging, threatening, even bribing members of Congress to get votes to support their goals. If we get to a point where We, the People, require Congress to balance the budget, the fools who believe in deficit spending will descend on the District like the flies, lice, locusts, hail-fire and darkness descended on Pharaoh. They will beg, they will threaten, they will bribe.

[I'm using the term "bribe" loosely, of course. Whatever these special interests will offer will be strictly within the letter of the law, but anytime you say, "give me this and I'll give you that," it's morally a bribe, and I include campaign donations on that list.]

In short, I am convinced by history that when you require a 60% or 67% vote, Congress gets that vote more often than not – especially when they can invoke an "emergency" to scare the average American into calling his/her member of Congress to plead for protection from that emergency. Professional politicians can always create an emergency when they need one: Global warming, bird flu, swine flu, Iran, Libya, the home mortgage meltdown, almost every hurricane and many other situations are or were actual, declared national emergencies. Not one of them threatened the existence of the United States or the lives of large numbers US citizens, and the politicians knew it. The manipulations which politicians have palmed off on the American citizen are mind-boggling, and, if the balanced budget amendment passes, it will only get worse. 

A 75% override vote is a whole different level of politics. Even though I don't think the balanced budget amendment is the answer, requiring a super majority (75%) vote for override is, for me, an acceptable compromise because I think a greater majority (67%) vote for override is constitutionally immoral. (Okay, you've waited patiently, here's what I mean by that:)

The Constitution of the United States requires a super-majority of States to ratify an amendment.
If the US Congress is going to override the US Constitution and the will of the several States, it should be by that same super-majority.

You might think I'm going out of my way to make it difficult for Congress to engage in deficit spending. You would be right in that assumption. Since I can't make it impossible, I will simply have to settle for making it as difficult as possible.

Second, this proposal is missing an important protection.

Are you aware that twelve amendments were proposed as the Bill of Rights? It's true, the first two – limiting congressional representation and limiting congressional pay raises – were not ratified by the several States back in 1791. So, what? Well, the second proposed amendment is now the 27th Amendment. It was ratified in 1992 – 202 years 7 months and 12 days after proposal.

The 18th, 22nd, and 23rd Amendments included a clause, "This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress."

This should be a standard, a given, a part of every proposal. Amendments should not be allowed to float around in the ether forever. Are you aware that the so-called Equal Rights Amendment had a 7-year limit on ratification and failed to get ratified within the 7 years? Are you aware that Congress became convinced it would fail (before the limit was reached) and extended the 7 years to 10 years? Are you aware that it still failed? The American people didn't want it, and giving it more time would not have changed that.

Did you know there are four amendments still floating out there that were passed by both chambers of Congress and sent to the states, but they will probably never be ratified?

This is bad policy. If you can't convince the States in a reasonable time, your chance of success is, well, once in 200 years thus far. For me, if it doesn’t work in 7 years, it won't; let's admit it and move on.

The Bottom Line

The current balanced budget amendment proposal is a good start, but passing it in its current form would be a mistake. If Congress would make these two small, but significant, modifications, I could get behind it.

And I don't think I'm the only one.

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

Liberal Hypocrisy

Big news this week from the Washington Post:

Jack Kevorkian, 83, the zealous, straight-talking pathologist known as "Dr. Death" for his crusade to legalize physician-assisted suicide, died June 3. . . . Dr. Kevorkian spent decades campaigning for the legalization of euthanasia.  He served eight years in prison and was arrested numerous times for helping more than 130 patients commit suicide from 1990 to 2000, using injections, carbon monoxide and his infamous suicide machine, built from scraps for $30.

His views on physician-assisted suicide got a lot of column inches in that story, but that story contained just one short sentence revealing what was actually in that man's small mind and cold heart:  The world's best-known suicide advocate died in a hospital, clinging to his life.

In related news from DigitalJournal.com:

Former NC Senator, vice presidential nominee and two-time Presidential candidate John Edwards was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury on six counts, which include conspiracy, four counts of illegal campaign contributions and one count of false statements.

The former North Carolina horse-in-a-toga and two-timing presidential candidate is accused of spending nearly $1,000,000 to hide Rielle Hunter and their lust child from public view during his latest unsuccessful White House bid.  His wife, Elizabeth Edwards, was diagnosed with terminal cancer and battled the disease while her husband fought charges of infidelity, tax evasion and fraud.  Mrs. Edwards lost her battle with cancer in 2010 while John (dubbed "the Breck girl" by Rush Limbaugh for his $400 haircuts) continued his battle last week with a not-guilty plea in federal court.

Likewise related, from the archives of Business Week:

[quoting a press release by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research]

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.  Gore’s [20-room, 8-bathroom] mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).  In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh – more than 20 times the national average. . . . Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

'Nuff said.

And, of course, that most-celebrated relative, Michelle Obama:

I'm sure you've heard the near-unending tirade by the First Lady about healthy food – a tirade that brings a whole new dimension to the phrase ad nauseum.  Apparently, the First Gentleman (and I'm using that term as loosely as the English language will tolerate) is the one person in the United States that hasn't heard her.  Or, maybe he's finally standing with the majority of Americans and not listening to her.

The First Nanny has made a lot of public appearances in support of a healthier diet for Americans.  Meanwhile, the President of the I Don't Listen To My Wife Club chows down on chili dogs, oatmeal raisin cookies, cheddar cheese burgers, shave ice, fried chicken, mashed potatoes, yams, macaroni and cheese, banana pudding, ribs, baked beans, corn pudding, rhubarb pie and more.  That's the road-trip fast-food menu, of course, the White House has a staff of chefs that 5-star restaurants envy, and we all know how much 5-star restaurants worry about counting calories!

The cherry crowning this banana split of dietary contradictions is Michelle herself.  At this year's Cinco de Mayo celebration, Pres. Obama told the assembled crowd of sycophantic toadies (sorry, did I say that out loud?) that Mrs. Obama's favorite type of food was Mexican, "You do not want to be between Michelle and a tamale."  He should know.  Personally, I'd rather not be so close to Michelle that she might notice I am between her and a tamale, but that's just me.

The point:

Yes, as always, I'm having fun mocking liberals, but there is a greater purpose to my mockery than "Scorn and defiance; / Slight regard, contempt, / And any thing that may not misbecome / The mighty sender" as the good "uncle of Exeter" said to the French King in Henry V.  Today, I also present a gentle reminder of the hypocrisy that is inherent in liberalism.

"Do as I say, not as I do" is the definition of hypocrisy we all heard as children.  Most of us actually listened, but clearly not the elitist liberal un-intelligentsia who think they ought to be running our lives with millions of pages of laws, rules and regulations, but seem incapable of following any rules, despite the hue and cry that somehow can't seem to get stuck in their duplicitous craws when a conservative displays some human weakness.  This hypocrisy is a character flaw of monumental proportions which the Democratic Party has institutionalized:

Did you hear about the 47 individuals or businesses, all close friends or associates of Bill & Hilary Clinton who were convicted of crimes during the Clinton administration of 1993-2001?

Remember the congressman (Democrat Mel Reynolds) who had sex with an under-age subordinate in 1994?  He received clemency from a president (Democrat Bill Clinton) who had sex with a subordinate from 1995-97.  He then got a job with a clergyman and former presidential candidate (Democrat Jessie Jackson) who had sex with a subordinate in 2001.
 

Remember Marion Barry (D-DC) – the former DC mayor and current city council member who's been evading taxes since 1999?

Remember all the empty talk about fiscal responsibility from Democrat Barack Obama – the man who added $4,000,000,000,000 to the US debt from 2009-11?  Well, you won't have to remember it, you'll be hearing a lot about it as he tries to lie his way back into the White House.

But wait, if you order now (as the infomercials keep telling us), there's more!

If you are thinking that I have somehow forgotten the grand master of liberal criminality, no.  (And, yes, you will notice that, among Democrats, hypocrisy and criminality are essentially synonymous.)  I was saving the worst for last:  Sen. Ted "Waitress Sandwich" Kennedy gave a girl the ultimate lift home back in 1969 – from earth to heaven.  Mary Jo Kopeckne was the victim; Chappaquiddick became the soundbite; Teddy remains the run-away victor.  As with so many other liberal misdeeds, we had to go all the way to the UK for the truth.

Kennedy, following a party, drove off a bridge between Chappaquiddick and the mainland.  He swam away, walked to his motel, took a shower, slept the night away, woke up and called for a newspaper then talked to two lawyers before calling the police – nine hours after the "accident."  This you have probably heard often.  There's more that you would have missed if you were looking in the American mainstream media, because it wasn't there:

Divers later estimated that if he had called them immediately, they would have had time to pull out Mary Jo. She had not drowned, but had survived in an air pocket inside the car – she was asphyxiated only when the oxygen ran out several hours later. (London Daily Mail; emphasis added.)

That's right, Miss Kopeckne survived the crash.  She probably spent most of the night sure that her knight in shining armor would be back to rescue her.  I wonder – did the new day that she would never enjoy dawn before it finally dawned on her that her hero had left her to suffocate slowly in a watery grave?  Was she – the rumors have persisted for 40-plus years – not a friend just met but a long-time mistress carrying his lust child?

The Bottom Line:

The Republican Party – and conservatives in general – have had our share of scoundrels and criminals, this we do not deny.  Neither do we excuse it nor do we reward it.

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.