Utah’s grassroots organization “We ARE The People” is resurrecting a push to restore Utah’s election system to how it used to be, before Utah’s elite started a decade long initiative to destroy it and “make us like California”. The bill is commonly referred to as SB54.
If you’re not familiar with this important piece of Utah’s recent history, we invite you to read this summary and get caught up. Knowing the history will help you be more effective on unwinding this mess.
If you would like to participate in their campaign, please CLICK HERE for their website.
The destruction came through a series of conspiratorial meetings and fake “conservative” leadership which ultimately ended in legislation known as “SB54”, referring to the bill number of the year that this freedom killing legislation was passed.
The primary idea was to say that Utah’s caucus system of choosing candidates, where grassroots neighborhood volunteers met with big name candidates face to face to ask them real questions, could be entirely skipped by instead gathering signatures for candidates. And signatures are generally gathered by big name candidates through paid signature gatherers. It means power players could buy their way into each election without having to face real people in real neighborhoods. If you’re googling about this, the term “signature route” or “signature path” was a common media term you’ll find.
The story is full of dramatic conspiracy, opposition and controlled opposition. The initial “Count My Vote” organization promoted the caucus destroying idea for the elite, with the “Keep Our Caucus” grabbing the grass roots. The opposition to SB54 was later transitioned into a clear controlled-opposition movement called “Keep My Voice“, creating confusion between the two organizations.
The grassroots of Utah did their best to fight this, but controlled leadership made it a rigged game. In the end the insiders got what they wanted through conspiratorial means, and the Supreme Court seemingly approved of what happened? The devil is in the details.
If you got involved in Utah politics only in the last couple of years, we’d like to invite you to read all about the history of Count My Vote in these articles, telling chunks of the story in chronological order.
Oct 25th, 2022 – Dr. Scott Bradley teaches the full principle of why this is the only proper way to do elections here: A Democracy? If You Can Keep It. Save Our Elections.
History:
April 22, 2015 – Count My Vote: Conspiracy for Utah’s Surrender
June 30, 2015 – Sarcastic Tone Article: Count My Vote found in Scripture
September 22, 2015 – Count My Vote Origins Will Shock You
November 23, 2015 – You’ve Been Lied to AGAIN About Count My Vote & SB54
2016 Election – Mike Lee disappoints conservatives by using Count My Vote’s new “Signature Path”, even though he already had the nomination guaranteed in the caucus, giving credibility to the destruction of the caucus among grassroots.
May 16, 2018 – Count My Vote Packets “Mysteriously” Show Up Just in Time
March 5, 2019 – Defending Utah Response to Supreme Court Rejection of SB54 Appeal
2 Responses
From what I saw this year, the old caucus system is no better than a high school popularity contest. When the candidate (who also garnered signatures) won his convention seat, by a very wide margin, then lost at the primary. This candidate insinuated that the will of the people meant less than the result of the convention.
He is now a write-in candidate and doing everything to smear the person who won the primary.
Your confusion goes back to a lack of understanding the different between a pure democracy and the republic we have that is based on representation. The caucus system determines the will of the people in a superior manner through a representative chosen by small neighborhoods, who is dedicated to spend a lot of their personal time making sure the candidates are truly what the people want. That takes time and work that most people don’t have, but a dedicated representative can give on behalf of the neighborhood. Your analogy of a popularity contest is actually more accurate for the new signature gathering route or any democratic process where the people don’t actually know the candidate. People choose who they like based on passing recognition of a name, slogan or superficial reputation, instead of learning if they truly stand for what they say they stand for.