These are the results from my Week 6 voter survey.

Do you support SB54, the compromise with Count My Vote that preserves the Caucus-Convention system?

Other Responses:
S: I believe the state should not be interfering in the process a party chooses to use to select their candidate. Those who wish to be on the ballot without going through a party's process already have a method to do so - it's called being independent.
L: Caucuses are a broken system whose sole purpose is to limit power to a limited few who are NOT accountable to the people who voted for them.
M: Do whatever it takes to preserve the caucus system
B: I don't think it preserves the Caucus system I think it will destroy it and I support the caucus system
P: It really bothers me that on one side we are aghast that a judge overruled a citizen initiative to preserve marriage by a man and a wife, and then on the other side, the legislator is trying to stifle a similar citizen initiative to get rid of the caucus system! Is a citizen initiative only good when it follows the whims of the legislature?
A: This compromise undermines the the caucus. Those who have a lot of money will get on the ballot without being vetted. The count my vote people basically got what they wanted.
M: In a few of the caucus-convention that I have attended there were few seats available. The room was full beyond its capacity. Many people had come and gone. I arrived late (15 to 20 minutes) and the voting was ongoing. It seemed to me that my vote did not count. I am ready for a different solution.
D: I would preserve current system as is
J: CMV was flawed, so is this. The concept that bothers me the most is this "low information voter" designation that treats certain citizens as 2nd class people.
A: We need to have full primaries. Yes I know it could cost more to run but the caucus convention system is too easy to control by small numbers.
D: Leave it the way it is. I don't understand why they think this needs to be fixed? I don't believe it was ever broken. Compromises are what we always make, I am not interested in making one this time.
R: Per lines 16-17-18 if nominated by petition and not affiliatedd with a party will "unaffiliated" show on the ballot?
B: I do not support the current caucus system
A: I think our caucus-convention is all that is needed. Count My Vote needed to just be defeated.

Based on the results of the investigation in to former Attorney General John Swallow, do you think the investigation was beneficial?

Other Responses:
P: We as citizens needed to know and, particularly, identify loop holes in laws that need to be clean up.
S: Rooting out corruption in government should always be a paramount concern.
A: It was a big waste of taxpayer money and could have gotten full reports from the Feds for free.
R: they need to hunt even deeper so where all the dirt bag are.
J: Cost way too much
K: I am completely indifferent on the subject.
R: If changes to disclosure rules make a difference I would change my vote form "I don't know" to "Yes".
M: Hate wasting that much money...

Do you support SB58 that requires Carbon Monoxide detectors in schools?

Other Responses:
S: Schools should be held to the same fire code and building standards as all other buildings and residences.
L: I don't know. What is next a bill requiring helmets in schools.
R: YES YES YES YES This is a no brainer!
S: Most school already have these and they should be required for all schools.
J: Who is paying for it? I'm not opposed, but they aren't free. Is there something that is driving this concern? Can we just use them where they make sense rather than a blanket requirement?
J: That should be a local decision made at the local level
J: I have to ask myself what brought this bill to light? Have there been carbon monoxide problems at the schools?
D: The school districts should just do this anyway without a law telling them to do it.
A: But only if it is done properly.

Do you support HB154 that would ban wood burning fireplaces?

Other Responses:
B: Definitely not! I do not believe the government has the right to ban anything that can be useful and may be the sole way of heating for some people.
O: Not until we ban higher polluting items like the refineries
P: There are many older people in older homes who cannot afford to change to mechanical systems. Unless there is some type of grant of subsidy to help with the cost of conversion, it is not right to force them.
P: If wood burning fireplace, stoves, etc. are the sole source of heat for a building they should be allowed. The use of wood burning equipment should be allowed during emergencies that prohibit the use of conventional heating. However, wood burning equipment that is being used for esthetic purposes only should be banned.
M: there are houses that a fireplace is the heating system. With wood burning being the majority. If you had a wood burning fireplace and the electricity and gas was out. You could use it in an emergency.
S: But they need to ban their use on no-burn days.
J: too general, but I have not read the text of the bill.
R: since when the government tells me what I can and can't have in MY HOME. and who makes the profit for it GAS COMPANIES!
J: Utah already had laws regarding the use of wood burning fireplaces during air quality "emergencies". I believe an outright ban smacks of government overreach.
D: In Urban areas.
A: We need less government not more.
M: Regulate, don't ban.

Do you support SB72 that would confiscate vehicles being driven without insurance?

Other Responses:
L: Impound would be a better word. Could we also impound the vehicles of those that are texting while driving. Texting is a growing concern and EVERYBODY does it. It is just as dangerous as drunk driving, but I don't feel it is criminal. Perhaps a rude awakening of having a car impounded for a day and the cost to retrieve the car from the impound lot would make people think twice prior to texting while driving.
B: All of these bills make the government larger and more powerful. I support a small, limited government.
P: I'm concerned, however, about someone who just forgot to mail their payment. Wish there was some way to review their record of past insurance. Having said that, however, the person who gets hit by an uninsured driver who is at fault needs compensation so I'm ok with it.
P: Yes, but only if the driver was aware that there was no coverage, or that his coverage had lapsed.
S: Absolutely. Driving without insurance is forcing others to pay higher under-insured or un-insured rates which is basically mooching off of others. We need to send a clear message to these drivers. If you drive a vehicle illegally, it should be impounded until you get your paperwork in order to get it back.
A: But the fine should be high enough to make it so expensive to not have insurance, second conviction revoke license for 10 years. That makes it real
R: it should be a very large ticket are police are to busy with everything else to keep chasing non-conformers
J: No! Those are private property.
K: No not even a little.
J: There are already penalties for driving without insurance. Giving government entities the power to seize property is fraught with the potential for abuse.
D: Are there special circumstances to this?

Do you support SB246 that would notify biological fathers if birth mothers choose to give their child up for adoption?

Other Responses:
P: While it sounds good on the surface, I'm concerned that a baby's life gets screwed up because a deadbeat father suddenly decides that he wants to be involved, when initially, he "walked" out of the life of the mother. Too many variables to know for sure on this.
A: I would want some exceptions (i.e. domestic violence), which I realize would be hard to hammer out legally
M: It looks to me that the mother volunteers the name of the biological father. How is this validated? She could give any name. I thought it was legal to have a birth certificate without a fathers name on it. I think being unmarried/married does not make a person a good candidate for a parent. In some cases I think you will have more children left at a fire station/hospital with a note stating up for adoption. Rather than give a name of the biological father.
S: Absolutely. If the father wants the baby, they should have a chance to keep it. The current practice is nothing more than the trafficking of babies which is immoral.
K: Why aren't we doing that already? Good grief.
N: This could become an ugly, circumstantial mess.
M: Within reason

Views: 87

Comment

You need to be a member of DavidLifferth.com ©2019 to add comments!

Join DavidLifferth.com ©2019

Interesting Links

© 2019   Created by David Lifferth.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service