This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2011, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
After a long day spent traveling, the famished diner sits in the restaurant and scans the menu. Excited to find the description of a dish that hits the spot perfectly, he proceeds to eat the menu. The menu is not the meal, of course, so why do we keep electing those who can't tell the difference?
Utah has a candidate selection process that assures "menu-eaters" will make it out of the party conventions and run unopposed by fellow party members. Allow me to state the obvious: Utah is a very conservative state, and one would expect conservatives to emerge from any system that is representative.
This mainstream conservatism, however, is not reflected in Utah's elected offices. Rather, the caucus/convention system creates the perfect conditions for election of ideologues, who even now we see eating their menus zestfully (Federal tyranny! More guns! State sovereignty!), not the least bit concerned with reality. (Full funding for education? No, let's require schools to teach that our system of government is a "constitutional compound republic," whatever that is, because — and how's this for confusing the menu for the meal — democracy has "democrat" in it).
Private school vouchers, fetishistic gun obsessions, suspension of the state open-records law, the rejection of popular conservative U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett, all confirm that our elected officials are much more interested in defending an ideology than in representing their constituents. And this will not change until we change our method of selecting candidates.
Special-interest groups will argue to the death for the current system because they know something everyone in the state needs to know: The system can easily be owned by a small group of energized true believers (insert Eagle Forum here). They favor this system precisely because it is not representative. They would be marginalized in a more equitable system.
The "menu" describes the caucus/convention system as enabling average citizens to participate. The reality of the "meal," however, is that average citizens are not represented. The whole system is rigged to favor those ardent few who are energized enough to attend an unfamiliar meeting, in an unfamiliar place, on a weeknight filled with dinner dishes and kids' homework.
Those who choose to attend are animated by an ideological fervor well beyond that of mainstream, conservative Utahns.
I am more forgiving than those who say it's the non-participants' fault; they get the government they deserve. Tired, working soccer moms and working-stiff dads deserve to be represented, too (though I understand this is not a democracy). Views of the moderate middle still deserve representation, even if we didn't make the extraordinary effort to attend a neighborhood caucus meeting.
We must make everyone's beliefs count, not merely proclaim that it would be different if everyone got involved. We should trust what we have already observed, that average people will stay home and the more extreme will make the choice for them. I don't know what a constitutional compound republic is, but doesn't it require representation of the populace? The "wisdom of groups" increases with participation — and we get better outcomes.
I dare suggest that even in conservative Utah, the average voter wants problem-solvers in office who are principled, and not ideological extremists. Let ordinary Utahns vote in a primary election. Let's replace the zealotry of the caucus/convention system, which in reality has failed us.
Given the chance, we will elect some pragmatists who want to fix real problems and who know the difference between the menu and the meal.
Brian Miller is a mental health professional who worked at the state hospital, in private practice, as associate director of the state office of mental health, clinical director for Davis Behavioral Health, and director of Salt Lake County Mental Health.