Utah: A Flourishing Oligarchy

One of the things that get me riled up is when I see a process set up that takes power that was originally in the hands of the people and transfers it into the hands of the wealthy and powerful. Yesterday, a part in that process was ruled constitutional in the State of Utah.
Maybe I'm a sucker, but I always would like to believe that Utah with it's majority LDS population, (and the corollary effect that such a population seems to have in making those who are not LDS, more faithful in their own chosen religions) should have an additional tempering effect against elements that corrode the power of the people.  This because on top of being American's, with specific rights guaranteed to us by the constitution, Latter-Day Saints have it codified in scripture that God has given them the Constitution, through wise men, that He raised up for that purpose. (see D&C 101:80)

Yet on Friday, April 15th, that erosion; that corruption of the power intended for the people is exactly what got held up as being constitutional by a District Judge (Read the KSL article here) instead of the rights of the people.

Heretofore, Utah has always had a lively, functional caucus system.  If you don't know much about the caucus system, here is a general breakdown:
-Every county in the State of Utah, is broken down into a number of smaller areas, called precincts.  (The area of your precinct is generally going to be your neighborhood.)
-Each registered political party will, once every other year, hold caucus meetings in those varying precincts (as long as someone from that political party actually exists within that precinct.)
-Those caucus meetings are participated by only those who live within the precinct.
-From among those who attend any of those caucus meetings, leaders and representatives (of that local area precinct) will be nominated and elected.
-Generally there will be positions of President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, County Delegates and State Delegates.
-The first 4 positions fulfill a function of committing time and assistance to the Party and its representatives in that local area.
-The remaining 2 positions fulfill the function of being informed on and then carrying the voice of that precinct (into either the county delegate meeting or the state delegate meeting) regarding those people whom that precinct would like to elect.
-In those respective two delegate meetings, (county and state) men and women who would like to be nominated for public office will be heard, nominated and elected by the delegates, to represent the party in the general election.
-If one of those nominees gathers 60% or more of the delegate votes in their corresponding county or state positions, then they become the candidate for that party, in the general election for the respective office in which they have been nominated.
-If a candidate fails to gather 60% but is able to gather 40%, then their name is put on a primary against the other candidates who were also able to attain the 40%.
-If none of the candidates are able to gather the 40% then all go onto a primary election.
I submit that this process -although not perfect- is hard to beat, in the effect of establishing the will of those who are willing to take the time to educate themselves and perform their civic duty to the benefit of themselves, their communities, their counties, their state and their country; as a force in and of itself.

An alternative has been opened up, however.  That alternative is by way of a bill, that when as a initiative was titled, Count My Vote.  This bill has allowed politicians to circumvent the caucus system by gathering a large number of people, who are registered members of the party in which they belong, to sign a petition to put them on a primary ticket.
I submit that those who passed this bill (read: incumbent politicians already existing in office) did so in order to retain power in their hands and out of the hands of the people and especially to keep the elections away from those who would like to run for office, but who may not have the same financial means as the incumbent.
Let me explain how this works for the incumbent:
-The number of necessary signatures is placed at a high number (2% of the number of registered VOTERS [Not party members] in the respective voting district.  So for example in a district with 50,000 registered voters, a candidate would need to gather 1000 signatures of people who are registered members of their respective political party.)
-The incumbent can use their tax-payer-based salary to pay a company to gather the necessary signatures for them.
-This includes paying even more money to the party to find out the contact information of the registered party members inside the voting district.
-Anyone who can't afford to pay for these services, must go house-by-house seeking out registered members and petitioning them to sign.  (The difficulty of this really gets exacerbated in rural districts: of which 90% of Utah's area is composed.)
-All who gather the signatures are then automatically placed on a ticket in a primary party election; thus circumventing the will of any who participated in the political caucuses.

Now I want you to ask yourself: what do you personally do in the voting booth, when you are presented names of people with whom you are generally unfamiliar?  What do you think most people do in that voting booth situation?
If you are like most people, you will vote for the person with whom you feel 'most' familiar.  Now an old trick of the political trade, is that the voters don't REALLY need to be familiar with you.  They just need to have the idea that they are familiar with you.  This trick isn't only applied in the political realm.
For those who currently live, have lived or perhaps have even traveled through Utah, will be familiar with the name Larry H. Miller.  Larry H. Miller was the president of the LHM group.  That corporate amalgamation included companies across several industries.  It created an advertising scheme that was employed, wherein those who were subjected to the scheme would be shown a picture of an smiling, balding man with his arms folded.  Then they would be told that this picture was Larry H. Miller, and 'You KNOW this guy.'
This scheme was used to reinforce to the public that if you know the name of someone and a picture of what he looked like, then he (and vicariously the corporation of which he was president) would be worthy of your financial trust in a variety of ways.
The same idea follows in all of those signs that you see posted everywhere with a politicians name on it, billboard signs, TV and radio advertisements, etc., etc.  All of these are advertising schemes used to convey the idea that because you are seeing someones name, a picture of them and possibly even hearing their voice in a purported sincere tone, that you are now familiar with them and thus they are worthy of your political trust.
All of these schemes are employed because the fact of the matter is, that most people are not able to or perhaps do not want to care about anything beyond what they absolutely HAVE to: food, love, sleep and definitely entertainment.  The fact of the matter is that politicians, especially local politicians get very little scrutiny about the accountability of the ideas that drive them.  Rather than try to educate an uncaring mass of people about what they (the candidate) believes is important, it is far more easy to pay to have their name plastered everywhere in front of their neighbors and fellow countrymen and rely on the fact that when in the voting booth, most people lack a real familiarity with any of the candidates and therefore are going to vote for the name that they have they have seen the most.  This means that the person who pays the most amount of money -to put their name in front of the public- wins the election.

This is why those who were already in office wanted the signature gathering option guaranteed to them.  Because they know they will only have to rely on the power their money brings their name in a voting booth with a majority of people who will not take the time to educate themselves in a primary election.
With the signature gathering option, they know that they don't have to really be held accountable to the people who care to make themselves knowledgeable about the various political issues and candidates.  Those who will spend their precious time in caucuses and delegate meetings hearing the candidates and the issues being discussed.
They know that with it, all they have to do is have money (or at least be willing to sell themselves to someone else who does have money.)  Have money to pay someone else to gather signatures for them.  Have money to pay for an absurd amount of advertising.  Have money to shove their 'free' trinkets, buttons, shirts, pens, signs and fake handshakes in front of enough peoples faces: and they will win.
(I put 'free' in quotation, because their salaries -from which they are paying for everything- is coming from the taxes they collect from us.  Therefore it is, WE who are paying for all of this crap that appropriately ends up filling landfills.
Or perhaps if they can get some lobby interest to pay then they can pay even more money than the next guy.  But then it all comes down to those who are willing to sell themselves for filthy lucre, will be the only ones in office.)

If as citizens of Utah, we allow this bill to stand, I believe we are assisting in establishing Utah as a de facto Oligarchy.  The Count My Vote bill, on a generality will not assist any outsider.  If you are a Democrat -or a member of any other political party- (I'm looking at you Libertarians and Constitutional Party members) then understand your ability (or one from your party) to gather 2% of the registered voters (who are also members of your party) in your voting district is greatly diminished if not extremely unrealistic.  Therefore this bill does not help you.
It does not help anyone with good ideas who may desire to fulfill their civic duty, but find themselves unable to compete on a financial level of those who are the super wealthy among us.  Simply put, the only ones who this bill helps are those who see themselves as possessing a right within an oligarchy!  Is it any wonder why those who sponsored this initiative include names like Mike Leavitt and Gail Miller (the wife of the guy that employed the advertising scheme referred to above.)
If you care about politics in Utah at all, then please let your State Representatives know that you are not willing to support such a dishonest and disenfranchising system.
I ask those of you who read this to please either respond in the comments with a statement to the contrary or at least pass this around.  The political environment in Utah needs to change.