For many voters in the recent 3rd Congressional District Republican primary, this virtue of democracy was on full display.

Chris Cannon was among the most conservative of legislators, with the American Conservative Union lobbying group scoring Cannon at 96 percent on their issues. But unfortunately for Cannon, being one of the most conservative legislators in one of the most conservative districts in the United States was not enough to maintain public confidence.

The specific reasons given for Cannon's demise have been varied, predictable and in many ways unimportant. More interesting is the fact that discussions over the results of the primary are almost exclusively couched in terms of why Cannon lost, not why Jason Chaffetz won.

Indeed, many believe that the loss is a foreshadowing of things to come for all incumbents, particularly Republicans.

The desire for change is ubiquitous. Gas prices, deficit spending, a dwindling economy and the war in Iraq weigh heavily on the electorate. The forecast on all fronts seems to be that things will get worse before they get better, so it makes perfect sense that democracy's citizens seek change.

Eager to oblige, candidates have frantically incorporated the word change into their daily lexicon, racing to the pulpit to stake out their claim as "the change candidate." This was the tack taken by Chaffetz in unseating Cannon.

But while Chaffetz was successful in capitalizing on the latent desires of primary voters, does he really embody the change they seek?

While it is possible that the remedy for electorate restlessness is a little fine-tuning, this proposition seems unlikely. The 3rd Congressional District needs more than just a candidate who can score a 97 or 98 with the American Conservative Union on its issues. And voters deserve more than tough talk on immigration and sensationalistic rhetoric on the environment.

Ironically, all indications point to Chaffetz cruising to victory in November. This "change" in representation will do very little substantively. A critical comparison of Chaffetz and Cannon on the issues shows only meager differences.

Both are essentially conservative Republicans who, in the end, toe the party line. Nevertheless, in the midst of such difficult times, it appears that voters are poised to simply choose more of the same.

This vice can be summed up in a word: partisanship.

The American two-party political system is built to facilitate dialogue and competition of ideas. When one party fails in its stewardship, voters can remove that party from office and bestow upon the competing party the power of governance.

Additionally, the American political system is a candidate-based model where a candidate may be elected even if his or her party does not hold a majority. At its best, this hybrid system fosters a productive discussion of issues, while providing citizens the flexibility to choose good individual leaders. Accountability.

At its worst, this system coerces voters to elect poor candidates based on a superficial understanding of issue platforms and surface-level politics. Partisanship.

Chaffetz' candidacy has provided an anxious electorate the opportunity to feel like it is voting for change, but to remain loyal to party affiliation. He has played the part, with promises of change mingled with hollow language centered on party values.

But in the end, when form trumps substance, accountability will lie squarely with the voters. This is the virtue of democracy.

---

* MICHAEL YOUNG graduated from the University of Utah and received his law degree from New York University. He lives in South Jordan.