Estimated read time: 3-4 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
SALT LAKE CITY — Any statistician or pollster will tell you that, assuming the methodology is sound, the larger the sample, the more accurate the results. With Herculean efforts from political parties, community leaders and various concerned institutions including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this year's caucuses saw record attendance.
With that record turnout, the State of Utah benefited from a much more accurate reflection of the "will of the people."
Not only did our conventions produce more accuracy, having a larger pool of concerned citizens changed the tone and the civility factor increased dramatically. But, here's the question, can this level of participation be maintained?
There is no doubt that the conventions of 2010 were a wake-up call. Utahn's clearly saw what happens when the highly-motivated, more extreme delegates overwhelm those that claim more moderate ground and more closely represent the core of our state.
It was a hard lesson to learn.
There's an old saying about poker, "If you can't spot the sucker at the table, it's probably you."
There's an old saying about poker, "If you can't spot the sucker at the table, it's probably you." I have received indignant emails, calls and letters from folks saying," I didn't see any incivility!"
I would refer them to the old poker adage. This year, everyone saw and felt the difference with a broader base of participation. But, back to my question and concern, can this level of participation be maintained?
Will 2014, an off-year election cycle, produce the same commitment? Will we see a state legislator again propose a bill that would clear the night of all state functions? Will West Valley City renew its resolution for no city events on caucus nights? Will various groups and organizations devote considerable funds to advertising campaigns encouraging participation? How about the LDS Church and its unprecedented effort that not only called on their members to engage, but cleared the decks for them do so?
More important than all of the above, since, so far, 2012 has gone relatively well, will rank and file concerned citizens be lulled back into complacency?
Here's the disclaimer: I have serious reservations about the caucus system in Utah, and I believe there are better ways to enable candidates to get on the ballot. Most agree that nothing is likely to change in the near future so, those "better ways" will have to be topics for another day. In the meantime, the goal of making our current system as productive as possible and keeping Utahns engaged has to be a top priority.
The next obvious step is for us to build on this momentum and redeem Utah from being among the worst in the nation in voter turnout to the position we used to have as best in the nation. We have that chance as we go to the polls for the primary races in June and then for November's general election.
The principle I mentioned at the very beginning is so important, the larger the sample, the more accurate the results. For those of us who have been dismayed by the tone and the drift to the extreme, we should take comfort in the results so far in this political cycle. In order for the trend to continue, it will take a firm commitment to stay involved, be more civil, demand more accurate representation and now, most important, show up and show up well informed in June and November.
